रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ;एनद्ध 04/0007/2003—05 REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05 प्राध्किार से प्रकाशित PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY साप्ताहिक WEEKLY
सं. 26] नई दिल्ली, जून 21—जून 27, 2015, शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 31—आषाढ़ 6, 1937
No. 26] NEW DELHI, JUNE 21—JUNE 27, 2015, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 31—ASADHA 6, 1937
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II—खण्ड 3—उप-खण्ड ;iiद्ध
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्राालयों ;रक्षा मंत्राालय को छोड़करद्ध द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविध्कि आदेश और अध्सिूचनाएं
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)
(Department of Personnel and Training)
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
का.आ. 1255.—केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अध्निियम सं॰ 2) की धरा 24 की उप-धरा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियाें का प्रयोग करते हुए, चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु राज्य में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा सौंपे गए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों का परीक्षण न्यायालयों तथा विध् िद्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण या अपीलीय न्यायालयों में अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों या उनसे उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों के अभियोजन का संचालन करने के लिए निम्नलिखित अध्विक्ताओं को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
S.O. 1255.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the State of Tamil Nadu at Chennai as entrusted to them by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/ revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law.
सर्वश्री
S/Shri
(1) B. Mohan
(2) N. Baaskaran
(3) N.T. Mohamed Ibrahim
(4) P. Sidharthan
1. बी॰ मोहन 2. एन॰ भास्करन 3. एन॰टी॰ मोहम्मद इब्राहिम 4. पी॰ सिद्धार्थना 5. डॉ॰ आर॰ उमा
(5) Dr. R. Uma
[F. No. 225/7/2015-AVD-II] AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
[फा॰ सं॰ 225/7/2015-ए॰वी॰डी॰-II] अजित कुमार, अवर सचिव
2609 GI/2015
(2615)2616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1256.—केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अध्निियम सं॰ 2) की धरा 24 की उप-धरा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियाें का प्रयोग करते हुए सिलवासा स्थित माननीय न्यायालय विशेष न्यायाध्ीश, दादरा एवं नगर हवेली में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) की ओर से मामला सं॰ आरसी 1(ए)/2012/सीबीआई/ एसी-III नई दिल्ली तथा इससे सम्बद्ध एवं प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपीलों/पुनरीक्षणों में उपस्थित होने के लिए श्री अजय कुमार गुप्ता, अध्विक्ता को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting
prosecution of cases instituted by Delhi Special Police
Establishment (CBI) in the State of Kerala at
Thiruvananthapuram as enstrusted to them by the Central
Bureau of Investigation in the trial courts and appeals/
revisions or other matters arising out of these cases in
revisional or appellate courts establsihed by law.
[F.No. 225/4/2015-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
वित्त मंत्रालय
[फा॰ सं॰ 225/53/2014-ए॰वी॰डी॰-II]
अजित कुमार, अवर सचिव (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग)
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1256.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocates as special Public Prosecutor for appearing in Case No. RC 1(A)/2012/CBI/AC-III/New Delhi in the Hon'ble Court of Special Judge, Dadra Nagar Haveli at Silvasa on behalf of (CBI) Delhi Special Police Establishment and appeals/revi-
sions or other matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1258.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा 3 के खंड (ग) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (3) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति को उक्त सारणी के कालम (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्ति के स्थान पर कालम (1) में विनिर्दिष्ट बैंक में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक, निदेशक नामित करती हैः—
क्रम बैंक का नाम वर्तमान निदेशक का नाम प्रस्तावित व्यक्ति का नाम
सं॰
[F. No. 225/53/2014-AVD-II]
AJIT KUMAR, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
1 2 3 4
1. युनाइटेड बैंक श्रीमती पार्वती वी. सुन्दरम, श्री अर्नब रॉय, मुख्य महाप्रबंध्क आफ इंडिया मुख्य महाप्रबंध्क एवं क्षेत्रीय निदेशक, भारतीय रिजर्व
बैंक, रामबाग सर्कल, टोंक रोड, पी.बी.नं. 12, जयपुर-302052
[फा॰ सं॰ 6/3/2011-बीओ-I]
विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
का.आ. 1257.—केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अध्निियम सं॰ 2) की धरा 24 की उप-धरा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियाें का प्रयोग करते हुए सुश्री मिनि एम॰ नायर एवं श्री एस॰एस॰ जीवन, अध्विक्ताओं को तिरूवनंतपुरम स्थित केरल राज्य में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (सीबीआई) द्वारा संस्थापित मामलों का विचारण न्यायालयों में अभियोजन संचालन करने तथा विध् िद्वारा संस्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायालयों में उन मामलों से उत्पन्न प्रासंगिक अन्य मामलों में अपील/पुनरीक्षण हेतु विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।
[फा॰ सं॰ 225/4/2015-ए॰वी॰डी॰-II] अजित कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1257.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Mini M. Nair and Shri S.S. Jeevan, New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1258.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of the sub-section (3) Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous
Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominates the persons specified in column (3) of the table below as Director of United Bank of India specified in column (1) thereof in place of the person specified in column (2) of said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:—
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2617Sl. Name of Name of the Name of the Persons No. the Bank Existing Director proposed
1 2 3 4
1. United Smt. Parvathy V Shri Arnab Roy, CGM
Bank of Sundaram, CGM and Regional Director, India Reserve Bank of India, Rambagh Circle, Tonk Road, P.B. No. 12,
Jaipur- 302052
[F. No. 6/3/2011-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 मई, 2015
का.आ. 1259.—भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अध्निियम, 1955 (1955 का 23) की धरा 19 के खंड (ख) और धरा 20 की उप-धरा (1)
द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा,
भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के उप-प्रबंध् निदेशक श्री रजनीश कुमार (जन्म
तिथि : 14.01.1958) को श्री ए. कृष्ण कुमार (जो दिनांक 30.11.
2014 को सेवानिवृत्त हो चुके हैं) के रिक्त हुए पद पर उनके पदभार
ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31.01.2018 तक, अर्थात अध्विर्षिता की
आयु प्राप्त करने तक अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो,
भारतीय स्टेट बैंक में प्रबंध् निदेशक नियुक्त करती है।
[फा॰ सं॰ 2/7/2013-बीओ-I]
विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 26th May, 2015
S.O. 1259.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section (19) and Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the Central Government, hereby appoints Shri Rajnish Kumar (DOB: 14.01.1958), Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India
as Managing Director, State Bank of India against the vacancy of Shri A. Krishna Kumar (who superannuated on 30.11.2014), from the date of his taking over the charge of the post and up to 31.01.2018 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 2/7/2013-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 15 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1260.—राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध् एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध्) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप-खंड (1) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी (उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अध्निियम, 1970/1980 की धरा 9 की उप-धरा 3 के खंड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा, नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को उक्त सारणी के कालम (3) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों के स्थान पर कालम (1) में विनिर्दिष्ट बैंकों में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक, सरकारी नामिति निदेशक नामित करती हैः—
1 2 3
यूको बैंक श्री वी॰एल॰वी॰एस॰एस॰ सुब्बा राव, श्री प्रवीण रावल आर्थिक सलाहकार, वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग
ओरियंटल बैंक श्री अरुनीस चावला, संयुक्त सचिव, श्री राजन कुमार आफ कामर्स व्यय विभाग
स्टेट बैंक आफ श्रीमती एॅनी जार्ज मैथ्यू, संयुक्त सचिव, रिक्त हैदराबाद व्यय विभाग
स्टेट बैंक आफ श्री सुध्ीर श्याम, निदेशक, वित्तीय सेवाएं श्री विजय मल्होत्रा पटियाला विभाग
स्टेट बैंक आफ श्री एस॰ सेल्वकुमार, संयुक्त सचिव, श्री जे॰ एस॰ फौगाट मैसूर आर्थिक कार्य विभाग
[फा॰सं॰ 6/3/2012-बीओ-I] विजय मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 15th June, 2015
S.O. 1260.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Nationalized Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provision) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government, hereby nominate the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Government Nominee Director of the Banks specified in column (1) thereof, in place of the persons specified in column (3) of the said Table, with immediate effect and until further orders:—
1 2 3
UCO Bank Shri V.L.V. .S.S. Subba Rao, Shri Praveen
Economic Adviser, Department Rawal of Financial Services
Oriental Shri Arunish Chawla, Shri Rajan Bank of Joint Secretary, Kumar Commerce Department of Expenditure
State Bank Smt. Annie George Mathew, Vacant of Joint Secretary, Department of Hyderabad Expenditure
State Bank Shri Sudhir Shyam, Director, Shri Vijay of Patiala Department of Financial Services Malhotra
State Bank Shri S. Selvakumar, Joint Secretary, Shri J S Phaugat of Mysore Department of Economic Affairs
[F. No. 6/3/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
2618 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य एवं सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग)
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो)
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1261.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाईसेंस नं॰ स्वीकृत लाईसेंसधरी का नाम एवं भारतीय मानक का भारतीय भाग अनु॰ वर्ष सं॰ करने की तिथि पता शीर्षक मानक सं॰
वर्ष/माह
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
01. 5746683 20140301 शिवाली उद्योग (आई) लि॰ कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008 प्लॉट नं॰ 3 एवं 4, सेक्टर-डी, उच्च शक्ति विरूपित उर्ला इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्प्लेक्स, इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- सरोरा, जिला- रायपुर, विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-493221
02. 5752173 20140305 रामा पॉवर एण्ड स्टील प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 खसरा नं॰ 344/1, पीएच नं॰ हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए 101, सीएसईबी सब स्टेशन के कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात समीप, बोरझारा, रायपुर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-493221 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
03. 5752678 20140310 गणपती इस्पात सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012
इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं
प्लॉट नं॰ 144, सेक्टर-सी, हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए उर्ला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, कार्बन ढलवाँ इस्पात रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
04. 5752779 20140310 फॉर्चुन मेटल्स लि॰ संरचनात्मक प्रयोग के 4923 1997 ग्राम-सोंद्रा चिखाई, लिये इस्पात के खोखले सिलतारा इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ काट-विशिष्टि सेंटर, फेज़ II, सिलतारा, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
05. 5752880 20140310 अविनाश इस्पात प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य गुणता के 15911 2010 200ए, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, संरचना इस्पात-विशिष्टि उर्ला, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
06. 5753267 20140313 बालाजी स्ट्रक्चरल्स (इंडिया) लि॰ सामान्य गुणता के 15911 2010 रिंग रोड़ नं॰ 2, टाटीबांध्, संरचना इस्पात-विशिष्टि रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2619 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
07. 5753377 20140313 श्री हनुमान लोहा प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य गुणता के 15911 2010 अग्रसेन चौक, बजरंग नगर, संरचना इस्पात-विशिष्टि रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-492001
08. 5753478 20140313 राध्े हुर्कत इस्पात प्रा॰ लि॰ फावड़ा - विशिष्टि 1759 1986 प्लॉट नं॰ 735/बी, उर्ला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
09. 5754783 20140314 जुनेजा बिवरेज्स पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 अग्रवाल लौज के सामने, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक बस्तर रोड़, ध्मतरी, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) छत्तीसगढ़-493773
10. 5757284 20140402 राध्े गोविंद स्टील एण्ड सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 एलॉयज़ प्रा॰ लि॰ हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए 102, जिंदल इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात पुंजीपथरा, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं जिला- रायगढ़, स्लैब - विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-496001
11. 5757385 20140304 हर्ष विनिमय प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 प्लॉट नं॰ 121, जिंदल हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क, पुंजीपथरा, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात जिला- रायगढ़, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-496001 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
12. 5757486 20140402 श्री ओम मैन्युफक्चरिंग (आई) पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट- 1489 1 1991
विशिष्टि
प्रा॰ लि॰ ग्राम-कमलपुर, द्वारा सिलफिलिया कमलपुर, जिला-सुरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़
13. 5757890 20140403 ग्राीन गोल्ड ईरीगेशन प्रा॰ लि॰ सिंचाई उपकरण - सिंचाई 12786 1989 खैरागढ़ रोड, डोंगरगढ़, लेटरल के लिए पॉलीथीन जिला-बस्तर, पाइप छत्तीसगढ़-491445
14. 5757991 20140403 ग्रीन गोल्ड ईरीगेशन प्रा॰ लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर- 13488 2008
विशिष्टि
खैरागढ़ रोड़, डोंगरगढ़, उत्सर्जकी पाइप पद्धतियां-
जिला- बस्तर,
छत्तीसगढ़-491445
15. 5758791 20140403 ग्रीन गोल्ड ईरीगेशन प्रा॰लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर- 13487 1992 खैरागढ़ रोड़, डोंगरगढ़, उत्सर्जक-विशिष्टि जिला- बस्तर, छत्तीसगढ़-4914452620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. 5760879 20140411 प्रियंका इंडस्ट्रिीज़ पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम-गंगपुर, पोस्ट- जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक पिपरिया, तहसील- कवर्ध मिनिरल जल के अलावा) जिला- कवर्ध, छत्तीसगढ़-491995
17. 5763077 20140423 यू बी वेंचर्स प्रा॰ लि॰ कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008
विशिष्टि
प्लॉट नं॰ 94 से 115, इंडस्ट्रियल उच्च शक्ति विरूपित एरिया, गिरवारगंज, सूरजपुर, इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- जिला- सुरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़-497229
18. 5763178 20140423 जिंदल स्टील एण्ड पावर लि॰ फ्लैंज कार्य एवं संरचना 5986 2002 पोस्ट बॉक्स नं॰ 16, अभिरूपण हेतु तप्त खरसिया रोड़, बेल्लित इस्पात के फ्लैट जिला- रायगढ़, उत्पाद - विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-496001
19. 5763279 20140428 रियल इस्पात एण्ड पॉवर लि॰ सामान्य इंजीनियरी 280 2006 उर्ला-बेंड्री रोड, बोरझारा, अनुप्रयोगों के लिए मृदु जिला- रायपुर, इस्पात की तार- छत्तीसगढ़-493221 विशिष्टि
20. 5764079 20140501 ग्रैविटी फेरस प्रा॰ लि॰ कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008
विशिष्टि
259/9, कन्हेरा रोड, ग्राम- उच्च शक्ति विरूपित अछोली, ध्रसीवा मंडल, उर्ला, इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-492023
21. 5764887 20140506 सिंथल पॉलीमर्स पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए 4985 2000 1/ए बीरकोनी, अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी जिला- महासमुंद, पाइप- विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-493445
22. 5764988 20140506 सिंथल पॉलीमर्स बोर-नलकूपों के लिए 12818 2010 1/ए बीरकोनी, अनम्यकृत पी वी सी जिला- महासमुंद, जाली और आवरक पाइप- छत्तीसगढ़-493445 विशिष्टि
23. 5767388 20140516 ओम श्री रूपेश स्टील प्रा॰लि॰ संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 ग्राम- चिरायपानी, तहसील- गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु रायगढ़, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात जिला- रायगढ़, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़ स्लैब - विशिष्टि[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2621 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
24. 5768592 20140520 क्रेस्ट स्टील एण्ड पॉवर प्रा॰ संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 लि॰ गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु ग्राम- जोरातरई, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात पोस्ट- मंगट्टा, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं जिला- राजनंदगांव, स्लैब - विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-491441
25. 5768693 20140520 टॉपवर्थ स्टील्स एण्ड पॉवर संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 लि॰ गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु बोरयी इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेंटर, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात ग्राम- रसमदा, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं जिला- दुर्ग, स्लैब - विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-491001
26. 5768996 20140505 मॉ मणी इंडस्ट्रीज़ प्रा॰ लि॰ संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 ग्राम- नटवरपुर, तहसील- गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु रायगढ़, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात जिला- रायगढ़, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-496001 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
27. 5769089 20140530 रियल इस्पात एण्ड पॉवर लि॰ तप्त बेल्लित मध्यम एवं 2062 2011 उर्ला डिविजन, प्लॉट नं॰ 317 उच्च तन्यता के संरचना से 321 एवं 356-360, सेक्टर-सी, इस्पात- विशिष्टि उर्ला इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
28. 5769695 20140616 मालती इंडस्ट्रीज पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 पॉवर हाउस के सामने, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक रानी दुर्गावती चौक, पेंड्रारोड, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) बिलासपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-495117
29. 5771076 20140616 जिंदल स्टील एण्ड पॉवर लि॰ साधरण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट, 12269 1987 पोस्ट बॉक्स नं॰ 16, 53 ग्रेड- विशिष्टि खरसिया रोड, जिला- रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़-496001
30. 5771177 20140616 जिंदल स्टील एण्ड पॉवर लि॰ साधरण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट, 8112 2013 पोस्ट बॉक्स नं॰ 16, 43 ग्रेड- विशिष्टि खरसिया रोड, जिला- रायगढ़, छत्तीसगढ़-496001
31. 5771379 20140509 इपिक एलॉय स्टील प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 132 डी, जिंदल इंडस्ट्रियल हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए पार्क, पुंजीपथरा, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात जिला- रायगढ़, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-496111 स्लैब - विशिष्टि2622 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
32. 5778595 20140807 अंजनी स्टील्स लि॰ सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 ग्राम-उजालपुर, पोस्ट- हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए गेरवानी, तहसील- घरगोरा, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात जिला- रायगढ़, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-496001 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
33. 5778696 20140725 बालाजी स्ट्रक्चरल्स (इंडिया) सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 रिंग रोड नं॰ 2, टाटीबांध्, हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए जिला- रायपुर, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात छत्तीसगढ़ इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं
स्लैब - विशिष्टि
34. 5782990 20140807 पी॰एस॰ स्टील ट्यूब्स लि॰ यांत्रिक और सामान्य 3601 2006 ग्राम- तेदेसरा, पोस्ट- सामनी, इंजीनियरिंग प्रयोजनों के जिला- राजनंदगांव, लिए इस्पात की नलियां छत्तीसगढ़-491441
35. 5785087 20140825 वंदना ग्लोबल लि॰ कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008
विशिष्टि
सिलतारा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, उच्च शक्ति विरूपित फेज़ II, सिलतारा, इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
36. 5786190 20140827 श्री बजरंग पॉवर इस्पात लि॰ कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008 ग्राम- बरझारा, गुमा रोड, उच्च शक्ति विरूपित इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, रायपुर इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- छत्तीसगढ़-493221 विशिष्टि
37. 5786796 20140828 श्री हरदेव इंडस्ट्रीज़ ईमारतों के भीतर एवं 14735 1999 पी॰एच॰ नं॰ 39, खसरा नं॰ बाहर संवातन और वर्षा 400/1, 400/2, 401/1, 401/2, के पानी के साथ मल एवं 401/3, 401/4, अपशिष्ट विसर्जन के ग्राम- बरोंडा, तहसील- तिलदा, लिए अनम्यकृत जिला- रायपुर, पॉलीविनाडल क्लोराइड छत्तीसगढ़-493885 (यू॰पी॰वी॰सी॰) अन्तः
क्षेपण संचकित फिटिंग्स- विशिष्टि
38. 5786897 20140826 अग्रवाल चैनल मील्स प्रा॰लि॰ तप्त बेल्लित मध्यम एवं 2062 2011 प्लॉट नं॰ 34-35, फेज़-II, उच्च तन्यता के संरचना इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेंटर, इस्पात- विशिष्टि सिलतारा, ध्रसीवा ब्लॉक, जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493111[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2623 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
39. 5787697 20140828 गायत्री इंडस्ट्रीज़ पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम- पद्मी, पोस्ट- बेमेतरा, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक तहसील-थान खमरिया, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) जिला- कवर्ध, छत्तीसगढ़-491335
40. 5787798 20140901 श्रद्धा सबुरी इंटरप्राईजेज़ पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 कत्यम बिहार, रायपुर, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक छत्तीसगढ़-492013 मिनिरल जल के अलावा)
41. 5792084 20140826 श्रीराम रोलिंग मील सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 प्लॉट नं॰ 13-बी (पार्ट), हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, रावाभाटा, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात ध्रसीवा ब्लॉक, जिला- रायपुर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-492001 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
42. 5796799 20140901 ग्रैविटी फेरस प्रा॰लि॰ संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 259/9, कन्हेरा रोड, ग्राम- गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु अछोली, ध्रसीवा मंडल, उर्ला, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात जिला- रायपुर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-492023 स्लैब - विशिष्टि
43. 5797094 20140917 श्री हरदेव इंडस्ट्रीज़ पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए 4985 2000 पी॰एच॰ नं॰ 39, खसरा नं॰ अप्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी 400/1, 400/2, 401/1, 401/2, पाइप- विशिष्टि 401/3, 401/4, ग्राम- बरोंडा, तहसील- तिलदा, जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493885
44. 5798403 20140915 वंदना ग्लोबल लि॰ तप्त बेल्लित मध्यम एवं 2062 2011 सिलतारा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, उच्च तन्यता के संरचना फेज़ II, सिलतारा इस्पात- विशिष्टि जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
45. 5798908 20140917 ईश्वर इस्पात इंडस्ट्रीज़ (प्रा॰) लि॰ तप्त बेल्लित मध्यम एवं 2062 2011 प्लॉट नं॰ 168, उर्ला उच्च तन्यता के संरचना इंडस्ट्रियल कॉम्प्लेक्स, उर्ला, इस्पात- विशिष्टि जिला- रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
46. 5799910 20140924 स्टील अथॉरिटी ऑफ इंडिया सामान्य इंजीनियरी 8952 1995 लि॰ प्रयोजनों की मृदु इस्पात भिलाई स्टील प्लॉट, भिलाई, तार छड़ों के उत्पादन के लिए इस्पात इंगट, ब्लूम जिला- दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490001 और बिलेट- विशिष्टि2624 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
47. 5801665 20140924 अमरचंद गणेशमल स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 सदर बाज़ार, रायपुर, मिश्रधतुएं, छत्तीसगढ़-492001 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता
एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
48. 5803568 20141009 विकास इंडस्ट्री पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 32/2, मुकेश निकुंज, बीजेपी जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक ऑफिस के पीछे, बालोदा मिनिरल जल के अलावा) बाजार, छत्तीसगढ़-493332
49. 5804570 20141013 श्री जी मिनरल्स एण्ड कोयला, कोक और 12981 1991 न्यूट्रिंट्स लिग्नाइट भस्म की दाउदे-खुर्द, बालोदा बाजार, संगलनीयता ज्ञात करने छत्तीसगढ़-493332 की पद्धति
50. 5812468 20141020 जिऑन स्पॉज एण्ड पॉवर सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 (प्रा॰) लि॰ हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए ग्राम- अम्लीडीह, कार्बन ढलवॉ इस्पात पोस्ट-भालुमर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं जिला-रायगढ़, स्लैब - विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-496001
51. 5812670 20141111 सुप्रीम इंडस्ट्रीज़ नेफथलीन- विशिष्टि 539 1974 प्लॉट नं॰ 12/एफ एवं एफ1, हैवी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, हाथखोज, भिलाई, जिला- दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490024
52. 5812771 20141112 गुजरात टिंबर इंडस्ट्रीज़ प्रा॰ लि॰ ब्लॉकबोर्ड- विशिष्टि 1659 2004 80, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, उर्ला, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
53. 5812872 20141112 गुजरात टिंबर इंडस्ट्रीज़ प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए 303 1989 80, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, उर्ला, प्लाईवुड- विशिष्टि रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
54. 5819482 20141128 रीगा पीवीसी इंडस्ट्रीज़ विद्युत विस्थापन के लिए 9537 3 1983 प्लॉट नं॰ 27-28 (पार्ट) नाली- विशिष्टि भानपुरी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-492001
55. 5900000107 20141203 अशोक जिंदल प्लाईवुड प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य प्रयोजनों के लिए 303 1989 पी॰एच॰ नं॰ 10/13, प्लाईवुड- विशिष्टि खसरा नं॰ 160, 161, 162, 163/1, 163/2, 164, 165, 167 एवं 168, ग्राम- मोहकाखुर्द, तहसील- पाटन, भिलाई, जिला- दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490006[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2625 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
56. 5900000208 201401203 रीगल प्रोडक्ट्स पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 835/61, राम नगर, गली जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक नं॰ 2, रायपुर, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) छत्तीसगढ़-492001
57. 5900000309 20141203 रवि ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 सी-203, नहाता मार्केट, मिश्रधतुएं, सदर बाजार, रायपुर, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-492001 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
58. 5900000410 20141205 पद्मीनी ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 128, एस॰एस॰ प्लाजा, मिश्रधतुएं, पी॰एच॰ रोड, कोरबा, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-495678 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
59. 5900000511 20141218 शुभ डिजायनर ज्वेलरी स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 बैद मार्केट, सदर बाजार, मिश्रधतुएं, रायपुर, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-492001 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
60. 5900000612 20141217 सुर्या मिनरल्स पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम- बायंग, पोस्ट- नांनदेली, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक जिला- रायगढ़, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) छत्तीसगढ़-496001
61. 5900000705 20141219 मनु भाई ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 कोतवाली चौक, सदर बाजार, मिश्रधतुएं, रायपुर, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़ एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
62. 5900000806 20141219 अरिहंत ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 गांध्ी वार्ड, महावीर स्वामी मिश्रधतुएं, चौक, मुंगेली आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-495334 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
63. 5900000907 20141230 लक्ष्मी बिवरेज्स पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम- भाकुरा, पोस्ट- परसा, जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक तहसील- अम्बिकापुर, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) जिला- सरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़- 497001
64. 5900001008 20141219 भाग्यलक्ष्मी पम्प्स एण्ड एग्रो निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट- 8034 2002 सॉल्यूसन विशिष्टि पंचशील गली, ब्रह्मा रोड, अम्बिकापुर, जिला- सरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़- 4970012626 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
65. 5900001109 20150101 श्री बालमुकुंद पॉलीपैक प्रा॰ लि॰ वस्त्रादि-50 किग्रा/25 किग्रा 14887 2000 प्लॉट नं॰ 1 से 7, इंडस्ट्रियल खाद्यान पैक करने के लिए एरिया, उर्ला एक्सटेंसन, उच्च घनत्व तेंदुआ स्कूल रोड, (एच॰डी॰पी॰ई॰)/पोलीप्रोपाइ जिला- रायपुर, लीन (पी॰पी॰) के बोरे- छत्तीसगढ़- 492099 विशिष्टि
66. 5900001210 20150105 बी॰पी॰ वाटर प्लॉट पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम- कोकाडी, तहसील- जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक बलोदा बाजार, मिनिरल जल के अलावा) जिला- बलोदा बाजार, छत्तीसगढ़- 493332
67. 5900001311 20150106 कृष्णा आयरन स्ट्रीप्स एण्ड संरचनात्मक प्रयोग के 4923 1997
लिये इस्पात के खोखले
ट्यूब्स प्रा॰ लि॰ प्लॉट नं॰ 813-821ए, उर्ला काट-विशिष्टि इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, सरोरा, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
68. 5900001412 20150107 बालाजी लोहा प्रा॰ लि॰ सामान्य गुणता के 15911 2010 239/248सी, उर्ला इंडस्ट्रियल संरचना इस्पात-विशिष्टि एरिया, रायपुर, छत्तीसढ़-493221
69. 5900001505 20150112 श्री हरदेव इंडस्ट्रीज संवातन और वर्षा के 13592 2013 पी॰एच॰ नं॰ 39, खसरा नं॰ पानी के तंत्र सहित 400/1, 400/2, 401/1, भवनों के अंदर की मिट्टी 401/2, 401/3, 401/4, तथा अपशिष्ट निरावेशन ग्राम-बरोंडा, तहसील-तिलदा, तंत्र के लिए अनम्यकृत जिला-रायपुर, पीवीसी पाइपें-विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-493885
70. 5900001606 20150109 श्री राम ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 जी-10, जीबी प्लाजा (गिरध्र मिश्रधतुएं, भवन) सदर बाजार, रायपुर, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-492001 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
71. 5900001707 20150123 क्रिस्टल पॉलीवक्र्स प्रा॰ लि॰ विद्युत विस्थापन के लिए 9537 3 1983 प्लॉट नं॰ 638, इंडस्ट्रियल नाली-विशिष्टि एरिया, उर्ला, रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493221
72. 5900001808 20150218 बजरंग बिवरेज्स पैकेजबंद पेय 14543 2004 ग्राम-पंडरीपानी, पोस्ट-कोड जल (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक तराय, जिला-रायगढ़, मिनरल जल के अलावा) छत्तीसगढ़-496001[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2627 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
73. 5900001909 20150219 शैलेश कुमार एण्ड ब्रोज़ स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 सदर बाजार, रायपुर, मिश्रधतुएं छत्तीसगढ़-492001 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता
एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
74. 5900002010 20150220 पी॰ एस॰ स्टील लि॰ संरचनात्मक प्रयोग के 4923 1997 ग्राम-टेदेसरा, पोस्ट-सामनी, लिये इस्पात के खोखले जिला-राजनंदगांव, काट-विशिष्टि छत्तीसगढ़-491441
75. 5900002111 20150223 सिंथल पॉलीमर्स प्रा॰ लि॰ संवातन और वर्षा के 13592 2013 46-47, सीएसआईडीसी, पानी के तंत्र सहित इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, बिरकोनी, भवनों के अंदर की मिट्टी जिला-महासमुंद, तथा अपशिष्ट निरावेशन छत्तीसगढ़-493445 तंत्र के लिए अनम्यकृत पीवीसी पाइपें-विशिष्टि
76. 5900002212 20150218 एस॰ आर॰ सुरेश ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 सुमीत ज्वेलर्स के पास, मिश्रधतुएं, मालवीय रोड, रायपुर आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-492001 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
77. 5900002305 20150226 जे॰ के॰ लक्ष्मी सीमेंट लि॰ साधरण पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट - 8112 2013 ग्राम-मालपुरी खुर्द, खसाडीह, 43 ग्रेड-विशिष्टि पोस्ट-अहिवारा, तहसील-धमध, जिला-दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490036
78. 5900002406 20150226 जे के लक्ष्मी सीमेंट लि॰ पोर्टलैंड धतुमल सीमेंट 455 1989 ग्राम-मालपुरी खुर्द, खसाडीह, पोस्ट-अहिवारा, तहसील-धमध, जिला-दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490036
79. 5900002507 20150226 जे के लक्ष्मी सीमेंट लि॰ पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट - 1489 1 1991 ग्राम-मालपुरी खुर्द, खसाडीह, विशिष्टि पोस्ट-अहिवारा, तहसील-धमध, जिला-दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़-490036
80. 5900002608 20150305 नूतन इस्पात एंड पॉवर (प्रा॰) कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए 1786 2008 लि॰ उच्च शक्ति विरूपित ग्राम-जरौडा, पोस्ट-जरौडा, इस्पात सरिए एवं तार- खरोरा रोड, ब्लॉक ध्रसीवा, विशिष्टि जिला-रायपुर, छत्तीसगढ़-493111
81. 5900000270 20150325 ए॰ पी॰ आई॰ इस्पात पॉवरटेक संरचना इस्पात (साधरण 2831 2012 (प्रा॰) लि॰ गुणता) के पुनर्वेल्लन हेतु इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेंटर, फेज-II, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात सिलतारा रायपुर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-493111 स्लैब-विशिष्टि2628 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
82. 5900000281 20150325 ए॰ पी॰ आई॰ इस्पात पॉवरटेक सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 (प्रा॰) लि॰ हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेंटर, फेज-II, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात सिलतारा, रायपुर, इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं छत्तीसगढ़-493111 स्लैब-विशिष्टि
83. 5900002911 20150323 ए॰ एस॰ ज्वेलर्स स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण 1417 1999 बी-201, नहाता मार्केट, मिश्रधतुएं, सदर बाजार, रायपुर, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता छत्तीसगढ़-492001 एवं मुहरांकन-विशिष्टि
84. 5900003012 20150331 इंद्रा पी॰ वी॰ सी॰ प्रा॰ लि॰ बोर-नलकूपों के लिए 12818 2010 ग्राम-भगवानपुर, तहसील- अनम्यकृत पी॰ वी॰ सी॰ अम्बिकापुर, प्लॉट नं॰ 127, जाली और आवरक पाइप- जिला-सरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़-497001 विशिष्टि
85. 5900003105 20150331 मारूती फेरस (प्रा॰) लि॰ सामान्य संरचना इस्पात 2830 2012 ग्राम-सरोरा, ध्रसीवा, हेतु पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए रायपुर, कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात छत्तीसगढ़-493221 इंगट, बिलेट, ब्लूम एवं
स्लैब-विशिष्टि
[सं॰ केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः 11]
एस. भावाल, वैज्ञानिक-ई एवं प्रमुख
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015
S.O. 1261.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bueau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following schedule.
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence No. Grant Name and Address of the Title of the Standard IS No. Part. Sec. Year No. Date party
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
01. 5746683 20140301 Shivali Udyog (I) High strength 1786 2008 Limited deformed steel bars Plot No. 3 and 4, and wires for concrete Sector D, Urla reinforcement Industrial Complex, Sarora, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh-493221[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
02. 5752173 20140305 Rama Power and Steels Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
ingots, billets, blooms Pvt. Ltd. Khasra No. 344/1, and slabs for re-rolling PH No. 101, Near into steel for general CSEB Sub-Station, structural purposes Borjhara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
03. 5752678 20140310 Ganpati Ispat Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012 Plot No. 144, Sector ingots, billets, blooms C, Urla Industrial and slabs for re-rolling Area, Raipur into steel for general Chhattisgarh-493221 structural purposes
04. 5752779 20140310 Fortune Metals Hollow steel sections 4923 1997 Limited for structural use Village Sondra Chikhali, Siltara Industrial Growth Centre, Phase II, Siltara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-439221
05. 5752880 20140310 Avinash Ispat Private Structural Steel 15911 2010 Limited (Ordinary Quality)- 200 A, Industrial Specification Area, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
06. 5753267 20140313 Balajee Structurals Structural Steel 15911 2010
(Ordinary Quality)-
(India) Ltd.
Ring Road No. 2, Specification
Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
07. 5753377 20140313 Shree Hanuman Loha Structural Steel 15911 2010
(Ordinary Quality)-
Pvt. Ltd.
Agrasen Chowk, Specification
Bajrang Nagar, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh-492001
08. 5753478 20140313 Radhe Hurkat Ispat Powrahs 1759 1986 Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 735/B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
09. 5754783 20150314 Juneja Beverages Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Opp. Agrawal Lodge, water (other than Bastar Road, packaged natural Dhamtari mineral water)- Chhattisgarh-493773
10. 5757284 20140402 Radhe Govind Steel Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012 and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ingots, billets, blooms 102, Jindal Industrial and slabs for re-rolling Park, Punjipathra, into steel for general District-Raigarh, structural purposes Chhattisgarh-4960012630 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11. 5757385 20140304 Harsh Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
into steel for general
Plot No. 121, Jindal ingots, billets, blooms Industrial Park, and slabs for re-rolling Punjipathra, District-Raigarh structural purposes Chhattisgarh-496001
12. 5757486 20140402 Shri Om Portland pozzolana 1489 1 1991 Manufacturing (I) Pvt. cement part flyash Ltd. based Vill Kamalpur, Vis Silphilia Kamalpur District: Surguja, Chhattisgarh
13. 5757890 20140403 Green Gold Irrigation Irrigation equipment- 12786 1989 Pvt. Ltd. polyethylene pipes for Khairagarh Road irrigation laterals Dongargarh, District-Bastar, Chhattisgarh-491445
14. 5757991 20140403 Green Gold Irrigation Emitting pipes system 13488 2008 Pvt. Ltd., Khairagarh Road, Dongargarh, District-Baster, Chhattisgarh-491445
15. 5758791 20140403 Green Gold Irrigation Irrigation equipment- 13487 1992 Pvt. Ltd. emitters- Khairagarh Road, Dongargarh, Distrct-Baster, Chhattisgarh-491445
16. 5760879 20140411 Priyanka Ind. Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill-Gangpur, water (other than P.O.-Pipriya, packaged natural Tehasil-Kawardha, mineral water)- District-Kawardha, Chhattisgarh-491995
17. 5763077 20140423 UB Ventures Pvt. Ltd. High strength 1786 2008 Plot No. 94 to 115, deformed steel bars Industrial Area, and wires for concrete Nayanpur, Girwarganj, reinforcement Surajpur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh-497229
18. 5763178 20140423 Jindal Steel and Hot rolled steel flat 5986 2002 Power Ltd. products for structural Post Box No. 16, forming and flanging Kharsia Road purposes- District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2631 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
19. 5763279 20140428 Real Ispat and Power Mild Steel wire for 280 2006 Limited general engineering Urla-Bendri Road, purposes Borjhara, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
20. 5764079 20140501 Gravity Ferrous Pvt. High Strength 1786 2008 Ltd. deformed steel bars 259/9, Kanhera and wires for concrete Road, Vill-Achholi, reinforcement Dharsiva Mandal, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492023
21. 5764887 20140506 Sinthal Poolymers Unplasticized PVC 4985 2000 I/A, Birkoni, Pipes for Potable District-Mahasamund Water Supplies- Chhattisgarh-493445 Specification
22. 5764988 20140506 Sinthal Poolymers Specification for 12818 2010 I/A, Birkoni, unplasticized PVC District-Mahasamund screen and caring Chhattisgarh-493445 pipes for
bore/tubewell
23. 5767388 20140516 Om Shree Rupesh Carbon steel cast billet 2831 2012 Steel Pvt. Ltd. ignots, billets, blooms ViII-Chiraipani, and slabs for re-rolling Tehasil-Raigarh, into low tensile District-Raigarh structural steel- Chhattisgarh Specification
24. 5768592 20140520 Crest Steel and Power Carbon steel cast billet 2831 2012
into low tensile structural steel-
Pvt. Ltd. ignots, billets, blooms Vill-Joratarai, and slabs for re-rolling P.O. Mangatta, District, Rajnanadgaon, Specification Chhattisgarh-491441
25. 5768693 20140520 Topworth Steel and Carbon steel cast billet 2831 2012 Power Ltd. ignots, billets, blooms Boral, Industrial and slabs for re-rolling Growth Centre, into low tensile Village Rasmada, structural steel- District-Durg, Specification Chhattisgarh-491001
26. 5768996 20140505 Maa Mani Industries Carbon steel cast billet 2831 2012 Pvt. Ltd. ignots, billets, blooms Vill-Natwarpur, and slabs for re-rolling Tehasil-Raiarh, into low tensile District-Raigarh structural steel- Chhattisgarh-496001 Specification2632 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
27. 5769089 20140530 Real Ispat and Power Hot Rolled Medium 2062 2011 Limited, Urla Division and High Tensile Plot No. 317 to 321 Structural Steel- and 356-360, Sector C, Specification Urla Industrial Area, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
28. 5769695 20140616 M/s Malti Industries Packaged drinking 14543 2004 In Front of Power water (other than House Rani packaged natural Durgawati Chowk, mineral water)- Pendra Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgar-495117
29. 5771076 20140616 Jindal Steel and Power 53 grade ordinary 12269 1987 Limited portland cement Post Box No. 16, Kharsia Road, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001
30. 5771177 20140616 Jindal Steel and Power 43 grade ordinary 8112 2013 Limited portland cement Post Box No. 16, Kharsia Road, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001
31. 5771379 20140509 Epic Alloy Steel Pvt. Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
ingots, billets, blooms Ltd. 132 D, Jindal and slabs for re-rolling Industrial Park, into steel for general Punjipathra, structural purposes District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496111
32. 5778595 20140807 Anjani Steels Ltd., Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
ingots, billets, blooms Vill-Ujalpur, Post-Gerwani, and slabs for re-rolling Tehasil-Ghargora, into steel for general District-Raigarh, structural purposes Chhattisgarh-496001
33. 5778696 20140725 Balajee Structurals Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012 (India) Limited ingots, billets, blooms Ring Road No. 2, and slabs for re-rolling Tatibandh into steel for general District-Raipur structural purposes Chhattisgarh
34. 5782990 20140807 P.S. Steel Tubes Steel tubes for 3601 2006 Ltd., mechanical and Vill. Tedesara, general engineering P.O. Somni, purposes Distict: Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh-491441[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2633 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
35. 5785087 20140825 Vandana Global Ltd. High strength 1786 2008
reinforcement
Siltara Industrial deformed steel bars Area, Phase II, and wires for concrete Siltara, District: Raipur Chhattisgarh-493221
36. 5786190 20140827 Shri Bajrang Power High strength 1786 2008 Ispat Ltd. deformed steel bars Vill-Barjhara, Guma and wires for concrete Road, Industrial reinforcement Area, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
37. 5786796 20140828 Shri Hardeo Unplasticized 14735 1999 Industries polyvinyl chloride P.H. No. 39, Khasra (upvc) injection No. 400/1, 400/2, moulded fittings for 401/1, 401/2, 401/3, soil and waste 401/4, Vill-Baronda, discharge system for Tehsil-Tilda, Raipur inside and outisde Chhattisgarh-493885 buildings including ventilation and rain water system
38. 5786897 20140826 Agrawal Channel Hot Rolled Medium 2062 2011 Mills Pvt. Ltd. and High Tensile Plot No. 34-35, Structural Steel- Phase-II, Industrial Specification Growth Centre, Siltara, Dharsiva Block, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493111
39. 5787697 20140828 Vaytree Industries Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill-Padmi, water (other than Post-Bemetara, packaged natural Tahsil-Than mineral water)- Khamriya, District-Kawardha, Chhattisgarh-491335
40. 5787798 20140901 Sradha Saburi Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Enterprises water (other than Satyam Bihar, Raipur packaged natural Chhattisgarh-492013 mineral water)-
41. 5792084 20140826 Shriram Rolling Mill Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012 Plot No. 13-B (Part), ingots, billets, blooms Industrial Area, and slabs for re-rolling Rawabhata, Block into steel for general Dharsiva, Raipur, structural purposes Chhattisgarh-4920012634 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
42. 5796799 20140901 Gravity Ferrous Pvt. Carban steel cast billet 2831 2012
ignots, billets, blooms Ltd. 259/9, Kanhera and slabs for re-rolling Road, Vill-Accholi into low tensile Dharsiva Mandal, structural steel- Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492023
43. 5797094 20140917 Shri Hardeo Unplasticized PVC 4985 2000 Industries Pipes for Potable P.H. No. 39, Khasra Water Supplies- No. 400/1, 400/2, Specification 401/1, 401/2, 401/3, 401/4, Vill.-Baronda, Tehsil-Tilda, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493885
44. 5798403 20140915 Vandana Global Ltd. Hot Rolled Medium 2062 2011 Siltara Industrial and High Tensile Area, Phase II, Structural Steel- Siltara, Raipur Specification Chhattisgarh-493221
45. 5798909 20140917 Ishwar Ispat Hot Rolled Medium 2062 2011 Industries (P) Ltd. and High Tensile Plot No. 168,Urla Structural Steel- Industrial Complex, Specification Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
46. 5799910 20140924 Steel Authority of Steel ingots, blooms 8952 1995 India Ltd. and billets for Bhilai Steel Plant, production of mild Bhilai, steel wire rods for District-Durg, general engineering Chhattisgarh-490001 purposes
47. 5801665 20140924 Amarchand Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999 Ganeshmal Sadar jewellery/artefacts- Bazar, Raipur fineness and marking- Chhattisgarh-492001
48. 5803568 20141009 Vikas Industry Packaged drinking 14543 2004 32/2, Mukesh Nikunj, water (other than Behind BJP Office, packaged natural Civil Line, Baloda mineral water)- Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493332
49. 5804570 20141013 Shree Ji Minerals & Common salt - iron 12981 1991 Nutrients fortified At - Doude-Khurd, Baloda Bazar Road, Chhattisgarh-493332[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2635 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
50. 5812468 20141020 Zeon Sponge & Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
into steel for general
ingots, billets, blooms Power (P) Ltd. Vill.- Amlidih, Post- and slabs for re-rolling Bhalumar, District-Raigarh structural purposes Chhattisgarh-496001
51. 5812670 20141111 Supreme Industries Naphthalene 539 1974 Plot No. 12/F & F1, Heavy Industrial Area - Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh-490024
52. 5812771 20141112 Gujarat Timber Block boards 1659 2004 Industries Pvt Ltd 80, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur Chhattisgarh-493221
53. 5812872 20141112 Gujarat Timber Plywood for general 303 1989 Industrial Pvt. Ltd. purposes 80, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
54. 5819482 20141128 Rigga PVC Industries Conduits for electrical 9537 3 1983
rigid plain conduits of
Plot No. 27- installations: part 3 28 (Part), Bhanpuri Industrial insulating materials Area, Raipur (susperseding is: 2509) Chhattisgarh-492001
55. 5900000107 20141203 Ashok Jindal Plywood Plywood for general 303 1989 Pvt. Ltd. purposes Ph. No. 10/13, Khasra No. 160,161 162, 163/1, 163/2,16 4, 165 167 & 168 Vill.-Mohkakhurd, Tehsil - Patan, Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh-490006
56. 5900000208 20141203 Regal Products Packaged drinking 14543 2004 835/61, Ram Nagar, water (other than Gali No.2, Raipur packaged natural Chhattisgarh-492001 mineral water)-
57. 5900000309 20141203 Ravi Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999 C-203, Nahata jewellery/artefacts- Market, Sadar Bazar, fineness and marking- Raipur, Chhattisgarh-4920012636 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
58. 5900000410 20141205 Padmini Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999
jewellery/artefacts-
128, S.S. Plaza,
P.H. Road, Korba, fineness and marking-
Chhattisgarh-495678
59. 5900000511 20141218 Shubh Designer Gold and gold alloys. 1417 1999 Jewellery, Baid jewellery/artefacts- Market, Sadar Bazar, fineness and marking- Raipur, Chhattisgarh-492001 Specification
60. 5900000612 20141217 Surva Minerals Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill.- Bayang, water (other than Post. - Nandeli, packaged natural District-Raigarh mineral water)- Chhattisgarh-496001
61. 5900000705 20141219 Manu Bhai Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999 Kotwali Chowk, jewellery/artefacts- Sadar Bazar, Raipur fineness and marking- Chhattisgarh Specification
62. 5900000806 20141219 Arihant Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999
jewellery/artefacts-
Gandhi War, Mahaveer Swami fineness and marking- Chowk, Mungeli, Specification Chhattisgarh-495334
63. 5900000907 20141230 Laxmi Beverages Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill.- Bhakura, Water (other than P.O. - Parsa, packaged natural Tehsil-Ambikapur, mineral water)- District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh-497001
64. 5900001008 20141219 Bhagyalaxmi Pumps Submersible pumpsets 8034 2002 & Agro Solution Specification Panchsheel Gali, Bramha Road, Ambikapur District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh-497001
65. 5900001109 20150101 Sri Balmukund Textiles-high density 14887 2000 Poly pack Pvt. Ltd. polyethylene Plot No. 1 to 7, (hdpe)/polypropylene Industrial Area, Urla (pp) woven sacks for Extension, Tendua packing 50 kg/25 kg School Road, Tendua foodgrains-Specification School road, District, Raipur- Chhattisgarh-492099
66. 5900001210 20150105 B.P. Water Plant Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill. - Kokadi, Tehsil- water (other than Baloda Bazar, packaged natural District-Baloda mineral water)- Bazar, Chhatthsgarh-493332[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2637 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
67. 5900001311 20150106 Krihna Iron Strips Hollow steel sections 4923 1997 and Tubes Pvt. Ltd. for structural use- Plot No. 813-821A, Specification Urla Insdustrial Area, Sarora, Raipur Chhattisgarh-493221
68. 5900001412 20150107 Balajee Loha Pvt Ltd Structural Steel 15911 2010 239/248C, Urla, Ordanery Quality Industrial Area Raipur, Specification Chhatthsgarh-493221
69. 5900001505 20150112 Shri Hardeo Specification for
Industries UPVC pipes for soil 13592 2013 P.H. No. 39, Khasra and waste discharge No. 400/1, 400/2 systems inside 401/1, 401/2, 401/3, building including 401/4, ventilation and Vill.- Baronda, rainwater system Tehsil-Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493885
70. 5900001606 20150109 Shri Ram Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999 G-10, G B Plaza jewellery/artefacts- (Girdhar Bhawan), fineness and marking- Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Specification Chhattisgarh-492001
71. 5900001707 20150123 Crystal Polyworks Pvt. Conduits for electrical 9537 3 1983
installations: part 3
(superseding is:2509)
Ltd. Plot No. 638, rigid plain conduits of Industrial Area, Urla, insulating materials Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221
72. 5900001808 20150218 Bajrang Beverages Packaged drinking 14543 2004 Vill.-Pandripani, water (other than Post-Kond Tarai, packaged natural District - Raigarh mineral water)- Chhattisgarh-496001
73. 5900001909 20150219 Shailesh Kumar & Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999
jewellery/artefacts-
Bros
Sadar Bazar, Raipur fineness and marking-
Chhattisgarh-492001 Specification
74. 5900002010 20150220 P.S. Steel Tubes Ltd. Hollow steel sections 4923 1997 Vill.-Tedesara, for structural use- Post. - Somni, Specification District-Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh-491441
75. 5900002111 20150223 Sinthal Poolymers Specification for 13592 2013 Pvt. Ltd. UPVC pipes for soil 46-47, CSIDC and waste discharge Industrial Estate, systems inside Birkoni, District- buildings including Mahasamund, ventilation and Chhattisgarh-493445 rainwater system2638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
76. 5900002212 20150218 SR Suresh Jewellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999
jewellery/artefacts-
Near, Sumeet Jewellers, Malviya fineness and marking- Road, Raipur Specificaties Chhattisgarh-492001
77. 5900002305 20150226 JK Lakshmi Cement 43 grade ordinary 8112 2013 Ltd portland cement Vill.-Malpuri Khurd, Khasadih, Post-Ahiwara, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh-490036
78. 5900002406 20150226 JK Lakshmi Cement Specification for 455 1989 Ltd Portland slag cement Vill.-Malpuri Khurd, Khasadih, Post-Ahiwara, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh-490036
79. 5900002507 20150226 JK Lakshmi Cement Portland pozzolana 1489 1 1991 Ltd cement part 1 flyash Vill.-Malpuri Khurd, based Khasadih, Post-Ahiwara, Tehsil-Dhamdha, District-Durg, Chhattisgarh-490036
80. 5900002608 20150305 Nutan Ispat & Power High strength 1786 2008 (P) Ltd. deformed steel bars Village-Jarouda, and wires for concrete Post Jarouda, reinforcement Kharora Road, Block Dharshiwa District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493111
81. 5900002709 20150325 API Ispat and Carbon steel cast billet 2831 2012 Powertech (P) Ltd. ignots, billets, blooms Industrial Growth and slabs for re-rolling Centre, Phase-II into low tensile Siltara, Raipur structural steel- Chhattisgarh-493111
82. 5900002810 20150325 API Ispat and Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012 Powertech (P) Ltd ingots, billets, blooms Industrial Growth and slabs for re-rolling Centre, Phase-II, into steel for general Siltara, Raipur structural purposes Chhattisgarh-493111[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2639 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
83. 5900002911 20150323 A.S. Jwellers Gold and gold alloys, 1417 1999
fineness and marking-
B-201, Nahata jewellery/artefacts-
Market,
Sadar Bazar, Raipur
Chhattisgarh-492001
84. 5900003012 20150331 Indra PVC Pvt. Ltd. Specification for 12818 2010 Village Bhagwanpur, unplasticized PVC Tehsil-Ambikapur, Screen and casing Plot No. 127, pipes for District-Surguja bore/tubewell Chhattisgarh-497001
85. 5900003105 20150331 Maruti Ferrous (P) Ltd. Carbon steel cast billet 2830 2012
into steel for general
ingots, billets, blooms Gram-Sondra, Dharsiva, and slabs for re-rolling Raipur, Chhattisgarh-493221 structural purpose
[No. CMD/13:11] S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head
नई दिल्ली, 11 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1262.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन विनियम, 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम 5 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, को लाइसेंस रद्द किए गए हैंः
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत रद्द/स्थगित करने सं॰ नं॰ पता वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय की तिथि
मानक का शीर्षक
NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11] एस भावाल, वैज्ञानिक-ई एवं प्रमुख
New Delhi, the 11th June, 2015
S.O. 1262.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each.
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licences Name & Address of the Article/Process with Date No. No. Licensee relevant Indian Standards Cancellation CML-
covered by the licence cancelled/suspension
NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
[No. CMD/13:11] S. BHOWAL, Scientist-E & Head2640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1263.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः—
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ संख्या संख्या की तिथि का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ वर्ष/माह
वर्ष 1 2 3 4
5 6
1. 7800000908 02/03/2015 गुरूकृपा इरीगेशन प्रा॰लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर - सिंचाई लैटरलों हेतु भा॰मा॰ 12786ः 1989 प्लॉट सं॰ डी - 102, एमआईडीसी एरिया, पॉलीथिलीन पाईप अवधन, ध्ुले - 424001
2. 7800001009 02/03/2015 गुरूकृपा इरीगेशन प्रा॰लि॰ उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली भा॰मा॰ 13488ः2008 प्लॉट सं॰ डी - 102, एमआईडीसी एरीया अवधन, ध्ुले - 424001
3. 7800001110 03/03/2015 सरस्वती वायर एवं केबल्स इण्डस्ट्रीज 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी भा॰मा॰ 694ः 1990 प्लॉट सं॰ सी - 1, क्रम सं॰ 4712, वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोध्ति वेवूर गांव, पोस्ट, मनोर रोड, केबल पालध्र,पूर्व, जिला, ठाणे-401 404
4. 7800001211 03/03/2015 मंगल पॉलीसैक प्रा॰लि॰ वस्त्रादि-जल अवरोध्क परत चढ़ा उच्च भा॰मा॰ 15351ः 2008 बी-144/133, स्टाइस मुसलगांव, घ्नव पालीइथाइलीन (एच॰डी॰पी॰ई॰) तालुकाः सिन्नर का बुना हुआ कपड़ा (भू-मेम्बरेन) जिला : नासिक - 422103 महाराष्ट्र
5. 7800001312 04/03/2015 फयूजन अप्लाइअॅन्सेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰ मा॰ 4250ः 1980 यूनिट सं॰ 14 15, बिल्ंिडग सं॰ डी 8, (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) भूमी वर्ड, पिम्पलास गांव, नासिक बाय पास रोड, नेशनल हाईवे 3, भिवण्डी, जिला ठाणे-421302
6. 7800001607 09/03/2015 रविकिरण मार्केटिंग एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर मलाईरहित दूध् पावडर भा॰ मा॰ 13334ः
भाग 1 1980 डेवलपमेंट प्रा॰लि॰, गट सं॰ 328/1, एन॰एच॰ सं॰ 3, सरवद गांव, जिला ध्ुले-424307
7. 7800001413 10/03/2015 गंधलीकर एग्रोटेक प्रा॰लि॰ उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली भा॰ मा॰ 13488 : 2008 प्लॉट सं॰टी - 15, बाभले फाटा, नरदोना एमआईडीसी, शिंदखेडा, ध्ुले 424309[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2641 1 2 3 4
5 6
8. 7800001514 10/03/2015 गंधलीकर एग्रोटेक प्रा॰लि॰ सिंचाई उपस्कर - सिंचाई लैटरलों हेतु भा॰ मा॰ 12786 : 1980 प्लॉट सं॰ टी - 15, बाभले फाटा, पॉलीथिलीन पाईप नरदोना एमआईडीसी, शिंदखेडा, ध्ुले 424309
9. 7800001708 17/03/2015 माइक्रो अप्लाइअॅन्सेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰ मा॰ 4250 : 1980 1/6, पुराना सिद्धार्थ नगर, (द्रवीपर और ग्राइंडर) प्रबोध्न क्रीडा मार्ग रोड सं 9, गोरेगांव पश्चिम मुंबई-400104
10. 7800001809 17/03/2015 डयूरॅबल होम अप्लाइअॅन्सेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰ मा॰ 4250ः 1980 110-111, कमला भवन, (द्रवीपर और ग्राइंडर) शर्मा इण्ड॰ इस्टेट, गोरेगांव पूर्व, मुंबई-400063
11. 7800002314 17/03/2015 विजय सब्रे सेफटी लि॰ (यूनिट 1) श्वसन संरक्षी उपकरण में प्रयुक्त गैस भा॰ मा॰ 15323 : 2003 प्लॉट सं॰ 11, सर्वे सं॰ 46/1 पी, फिल्टर और यौगिक फिल्टर दमन गंगा इण्ड.॰ इस्टेट, अथल सिलवासा भिलाड रोड सिलवासा-396230 दादरा नगर हवेली
12. 7800001910 18/03/2015 मॅगनम मेडिकेयर प्रा॰लि॰ चिकित्सा वस्त्रादि - शल्यक भा॰ मा॰ 16289 :2014 यूनिट सं॰ 21,22,23 तल मंजिल मुखिका नकाब सुप्रिम इस्टेट, सर्वे सं॰ 14, एच॰ सं॰ 2, देवदल गांव, वसई पूर्व जिला ठाणे, महाराष्ट्र-401203
13. 7800002011 19/03/2015 आदिनाथ केबल्स 1100 वोल्ट तक कार्यकारी वोल्टता के भा॰ मा॰ 1554 प्लॉट सं॰ 86, दिवान एण्ड के लिए पी वी सी रोध्ति (भारी ड्यूटी) (भाग 1 1) : 1988 सन्स इण्ड. इस्टेट, अलियाली गांव, विद्युत केबल पालघर-401404
14. 7800002112 23/03/2015 सूरज प्लास्ट विद्युत संस्थापनों के लिए नलिकाएं भा॰ मा॰ 9537 :
प्लॉट सं॰ 124, चिखलोली एमआईडीसी, भाग 3 विद्युतरोध्ी सामग्री के दृढ़ भाग 3 1983 अंबरनाथ इण्ड॰ एरीया, सादे इस्पात नलिकाएं अंबरनाथ पश्चिम जिला ठाणे-421505
15. 7800002213 24/03/2015 केमट्रोल इण्डस्ट्रीज लि॰ एक्सप्लोसिव ऐटमॅस्फिअर्स - भाग - 1 भा॰मा॰/आयईसी 60079ः प्लॉट सं॰ आर 24, एमआईडीसी, फलेमप्रूफ इनक्लोजर 'डी' द्वारा उपस्कर भाग - 1 2007 रबाले, टीटीसी इण्ड. एरीया, संरक्षा ठाणे बेलापुर रोड, नवी मुंबई-4007012642 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5 6
16. 7800002407 31/03/2015 एैश्वर्या इण्डस्ट्रीज बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰ मा॰ 4250 : 1980 गाला सं॰ ए 18, डिसिल्वा बाग (द्रवीपर और ग्राइंडर) अंध्ेरी घाटकोपर लक रोड, असल्फा घाटकोपर पश्चिम मुंबई-400 084
17. 7800002508 31/03/2015 जी नाइन मोडयूलर प्रा॰लि॰ यूनिट II विद्युत प्रयोजनों के लिए दाब सुग्राही भा॰ मा॰ 7809 प्लॉट सं॰ 11/12, सर्वे सं॰ 77/2, आसंजनशील विद्युतरोध्ी टेप - भाग 3ः (भाग 3) : खंड 1ः 1986 सातीवली रोड, इण्ड. इस्टेट के पीछे, अलग अलग सामग्रियों की अपेक्षाएं खंड 1ः वालीव फाटा वसई, जिला ठाणे-401208 अतापमापी आसंजनशील वाले सुघथ्टयत
पॉलीविनाइलक्लोराइड टेप
18. 7800002609 31/03/2015 ओंमकार इलक्ट्रॉनिक्स, 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी भा॰ मा॰ 694ः 1990 बी - 62, अपर अंबरनाथ, एमआईडीसी, वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोध्ति केबल आनंदनगर, अंबरनाथ पूर्व ठाणे-421506
19. 7800002710 31/03/2015 डेकोर इलेक्ट्रीकल्स घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए भा॰ मा॰ 3854 : 1997 रेड्डी कंपाउण्ड, वलनाई कालोनी, स्विच टेरेस स्कूल के सामने, मालाड पश्चिम मुंबई-400 064
[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ - ईईई)
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1263.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence No. Grant Name and address (factory) Product IS No./Part./Sec. Year No. Date of the party
1 2 3 4
5 6
1. 7800000908 02/03/2015 Gurukripa Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. Irrigation equipment - IS 12786 : 1989 Plot No. S-102 MIDC Area, polyethylene pipes for Awadhan irrigation laterals- Dhule - 424001
2. 7800001009 02/03/2015 Gurukripa Irrigation Pvt. Ltd. Emmitting pipes system IS 13488 : 2008 Plot No. D-102, MIDC Area, Awadhan, Dhule - 424001
3. 7800001110 03/03/2015 Saraswati Wires & Cables Industries PVC Insulated Cables for IS 694 : 1990 Plot No. C-1, Sl. No. 47/2, Working Voltages upto and Vevoor Village Post Manor Road, including 1100 V IS 694 : 1990 Palghar (E) Thane - 401404[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2643 1 2 3 4
5 6
4. 7800001211 03/03/2015 Mangal Ploysacks Pvt. Ltd Textiles - laminated high density IS 15351 : 2008 B-144/133, Stice Musalgaon polyethylene (hdpe) fabric for Tal:Sinnar canal lining - Dist: Nashik - 422103 Maharashtra
5. 7800001312 04/03/2015 Fusion Appliances LLP Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250 : 1980 Unit No. 14/15, BLDG No. D-8, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Bhumi World, At pimplas Village, Nashik by Pass Road (NH 3), Bhiwandi Distt : Thane - 421302
6. 7800001607 09/03/2015 Ravikiran Marketing & Skimmed milk powder - part 1: IS 13334 : Part 1 : 2014 Infrastructurer Dev Pvt Ltd standard grade Gat No. 328/1/1, N.H. 3, Village Sarvad, Distt: Dhule-424307
7. 7800001413 10/03/2015 Gandhalikar Agrotech Pvt Ltd Emitting pipes system IS 13488 : 2008 Plot No. T-15, Babhale Phata, Nardana MIDC, Shindkheda Dhule - 424309
8. 7800001514 10/03/2015 Gandhalikar Agrotech Pvt Ltd Irrigation equipment - IS 12786 : 1989
irrigation laterals-
Plot No. T-15, Babhale Phata, polyethylene pipes for Nardana MIDC, Shindkheda Dhule - 424309
9. 7800001708 17/03/2015 Micro Appliances Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250 : 1980 1/6, Old Siddharth Nagar, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Prabhodhn Krida Marg, Road No. 9 Goregaon West, Mumbai - 400104
10. 7800001809 17/03/2015 Durable Home Appliances Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250 : 1980 110-111, Kamala Bhawan, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Sharma Indl. Estate, Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063
11. 7800002314 17/03/2015 Vijay Sabre Safety Limited (Unit-1) Gas filters and combined filters IS 15323 : 2003 Plot No. 11, Survey No. 46/1 P, used in Respiratory protective . Daman Ganga Industrial Estate, equipment Athal, Silvassa-Bhilad Road, Silvassa - 396230 Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli,
12. 7800001910 18/03/2015 Magnum Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Medical Textiles - Surgical Face IS 16289 : 2014 Unit No. 21,22,23, Ground Floor, Masks Supreme Estate, Survey No. 14, H. No. 2, Village Devdal, Vasai - East Dist. Thane, Maharashtra - 4012032644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5 6
13. 7800002011 19/03/2015 Aadinath Cables Pvc insulated (heavy duty) IS 1554 : Part 1:1988 Plot No. 86, Dewan & Sons, electric cables: part 1 for working Industrial Estate, Village Aliyali, voltages upto and including Palghar, Thane - 401404 1 100 v
14. 7800002112 23/03/2015 Suraj Plast Conduits for electrical IS 9537:Part 3:1983 Plot No. 124, Chikhloli MIDC, installations: Part 3 Rigid palin Ambernath Indl Area, conduits of insulating materials. Ambernath (W) Distt: Thane-421505
15. 7800002213 24/03/2015 Chemtrols Industries Limited Explosive atmospheres part I IS/IEC 60079:
Plot No. R 24, MIDC, Rabale, equipment protection by Part 1 2007 TTC Industrial Area, Thane- flameproof enclosures "d" Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai-400701
16. 7800002407 31/03/2015 Aishwarya Industries Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250:1980 Gala No. A/8, D-Silva Baug, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Andheri- Ghatkopar Link Road, Asalfa, Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai - 400084
17. 7800002508 31/03/2015 G. Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd. - Unit II Pressure sensitive adhesive IS 7809:Part 3: Sec 1 Plot No. 11/12, Survey No. 77/2, insulating tapes for electrical 1986 Sativali Road, Behind Indl Estate, purposes - part 3: requirements Waliv Phata, Vasai for individual materials - Distt: Thane - 401208 section 1: plasticized
polyvinylchoride tapes with non-thermosetting adhesive
18. 7800002609 31/03/2015 Omkar Electronics PVC insulated cables for working IS 694 : 1990 B-62, Additional Ambernath MIDC, Voltages upto and including Anandnagar, Ambernath (E) 1100 V IS 694:1990 Distt:Thane - 421506
19. 7800002710 31/03/2015 Decore Electricals Switches for domestic and IS 3854:1997 Reddy Compound, Valnai Colony, similar purposes Opp: Terace School, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064
[No. CMD/13:11]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1264.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैंः—
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध रद्द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
1. 3822259 गोल्ड ऑयल कार्पोरेशन (सिलवासा) भा॰ मा॰ 335ः199 04/03/2015
प्लॉट सं॰ 5, सर्वे सं॰ 207/5, नये विद्युत रोध्न तेल
विलेज उमरकुल सिलवासा - 396230
[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एम यू बी ओ - ईईई)[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2645
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1264.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Name and address of the licensee Article/process with relevant Date of No. No.
Indian standard covered by the Licence cancellation
1. 3822259 Gold Oil Corporation (Silvassa)
IS 335:1993 04/03/2015 Plot No. 5, Survey No. 207/5, New insulating oils
Village Umarkul, Silvassa - 396230
[No. CMD/13:13] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1265.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः—
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ संख्या संख्या की तिथि का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ वर्ष/माह
वर्ष
1 2 3 4
5 6
1. 7800002811 01/04/2015 फाती जनरल ईक्विपमेंट प्रा॰ लि॰ एक्सप्लोसिव ऐटमॅस्फिअर्स - भाग - 1 भा॰मा/आयईसी 60079ः प्लॉट सं. 2 एवं 3 जवाहर इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट फलेमप्रूफ इनक्लोजर 'डी' द्वारा भाग - 1ः 2007 कमोठे, पनवेल जिला रायगढ़ - 4102209 उपस्कर संरक्षा
2. 7800003013 13/04/2015 ऋृषि टेकटेल्स लि कृषि और बागवानी प्रयोजन हेतु भा॰मा॰ 16008 : 2012 सर्वे सं॰-381 शरी कोसवे रोड कृषि-वस्त्रादी - आभा जाली काचिगम दमन - 396210
3. 7800002912 15/04/2015 स्टेलमेक लि एसी स्टाटीक व्यटअवर मिटर, श्रेणी भा॰ मा॰ 13779ः 1999 प्लॉट सं॰ 14/15 एन एच सं॰-8 1 एवं 2 सतीवली वसई पूर्व जिल्हा ठाणे - 401208
4. 7800003308 15/4/2015 शालीमार पेन्टस लिमिटेड तैयार मिश्रित रंगरोगन, वायु शुष्क, भा॰ मा॰ 2074ः 1992 नासिक - मुबंई रोड गोन्डे गांव लाल ओक्साईड िशंक क्रोम प्राइमिंग तालुका ईगतपुरी जिला नासिक-422403
5. 7800003114 17/4/2015 भूवाल इन्स्युलेशन केबल प्रा॰ लि॰ वैल्डिंग केबल्स भा॰ मा॰ 9857ः 1990 गाला सं॰ 4 एवं 5 अंकित इण्ड इस्टेट एम एल के इण्ड इस्टेट के नजदीक सतीवली हाइवे, गामदेवी, सतीवली, वसई-पूर्व, ठाणे-401208
6. 7800003207 17/4/2015 सुपरटेक्स वोवन इंडस्ट्रीज़ वस्त्रादि-50 किलोग्राम अनाज की भा॰ मा॰ 14887ः 2014 168/179/180, दाभेल इंडस्ट्रियल पैकेजिंग के लिए उच्च घनत्व को आपरेटिव सोसाइटी लि॰, दाभेल गांव पॉलीथिलीन एचडीपीई पॉलीप्रोपीलीन जिलाः दमन-396210 (पीपी) बुना बोरे2646 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3 4
5 6
7. 7800003409 23/4/2015 दमन पॉलीफॅब वस्त्रादि-50 किलोग्राम अनाज की भा॰ मा॰ 14887ः 2014 सर्वे सं॰ 331/1, 2, 3, 4 और 331/1ए, पैकेजिंग के लिए उच्च घनत्व काचीगाम पॉलीथिलीन एचडीपीई पॉलीप्रोपीलीन दमन-396210 (पीपी) बुना बोरे
8. 7800003510 24/4/2015 जी-नाईन मोदुलार मॉड्यूलर प्रा॰ लि॰ 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी भा॰ मा॰ 694ः 1990 प्लॉट सं॰ 11/12, सर्वे सं॰ 7712 वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोध्ति केबल सतीवली रोड प्राईड इण्ड इस्टेट के पीछे वालीव फाटा, वसई, ठाणे-401208
9. 7800003611 30/4/2015 ग्रासिया मेटल प्रा॰ लि॰ 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी भा॰ मा॰ 694ः 1990 प्लॉट सं॰ 8/117/ए-2, सीमेंट फैक्टरी के वोल्टता के लिए पी वी सी रोध्ति केबल नजदीक आमगाव इण्ड एरिया, तलासरी जिलाः ठाणे-401106
10. 7800003712 30/4/2015 ओसविन इंडस्ट्रीज़
घरेलु और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विच भा॰ मा॰ 3854ः 1997 जी॰ नं॰ 27/28 पहला माला, न्यू विंग पटेल इण्ड इस्टेट, दहिसर पुलिस स्टेशन के सामने, आस, एस व्ही रोड, दहिसर पूर्व मुंबई - 400068
[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः 11] टी. कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1265.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certifications) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) of the party Product IS No./Part/Sec Year No. No. Date
1 2 3 4
5 6
1. 7800002811 01/04/2015 Fati General Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Explosive atmospheres part 1 IS/IEC 60079:
Plot No. 2 & 3, Jawahar Indl. Estate, equipment protection by Part I: 2007 Kamothe, Panvel flameproof enclosures "d" Distt: Raigad-410209
2. 7800003013 13/04/2015 Rishi Techtex Ltd. Agro Textiles-Shade Nets for IS 16008: 2012 Survey No. 381, Agriculture Purpose Zari Causeway Road, Kachigam Daman-396210
3. 7800002912 15/04/2015 Stelmec Limited Ac static watthour meters, IS 13779: 1999
Plot No. 14/15, N, H, No. 8, class 1 and 2
Sativali
Vasai(E), Distt. Thane-401208
4. 7800003308 15/04/2015 Shalimar Paints Limited Ready mixed paint, air drying, IS 2074: 1992
Nashik-Mumbai Road, red oxide zinc chrome, priming
Village Gonde , Tal: Igatpuri
Dist: Nashik-422403
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2647
1 2 3 4
5 6
5. 7800003114 17/04/2015 Bhuwal Insulation Cable Pvt. Ltd. Welding cables IS 9857: 1990 Gala No. 4 & 5, Ankit Indl. Estate, Near M.L.K. Indl Estate, Sativali Highway, Gamdevi, Sativali Vasai(E) Distt-Thane-401208
6. 7800003207 17/04/2015 Supertex Woven Industries Textiles- high density IS14887: 2014 168/179/180, Dabhel Industrial polyethylene (hdpe)/ Co-op. SOC. Ltd. Village Dabhel polypropylene(pp) woven Distt: Daman-396210 sacks for packing 50 kg/25 kg
foodgrains
7. 7800003409 23/04/2015 Daman Polyfabs Textiles- high density IS 14887: 2014 Survey No. 331/1, 2, 3, 4 & 331/1A, polyethylene (hdpe)/ Kachigam Daman polypropylene(pp) woven Daman & Diu-396210 sacks for packing 50 kg/25 kg
foodgrains
8. 7800003510 24/04/2015 G. Nine Modular Pvt. Ltd. - Unit II Pvc insulated cables for working IS 694: 2010 Plot No. 11/12, Survey No. 77/2, voltages upto and including 1100v Sativali Road, Behind pride Indl. Estate, Waliv Phata Vasai Distt: Thane-401208
9. 7800003611 30/04/2015 Gracia Metals Pvt. Ltd. Pvc insulated cables for working IS 694: 2010 Plot No. 8/117/A-2, Near Cement voltages upto and including 1100v Factory, Aamgaon Indl. Area Talasari Distt: Thane-401106
10. 7800003712 30/04/2015 Oswin Industries Switches for domestic and similar IS 3854: 1997 G. No. 27/28, First Floor, purposes New Wing, Patel Industrial Estate, Opp Dahisar Police Station, S.V. Rd., Dahisar (E) Mumbai-400068
[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1266.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम सम्बद्ध रद्द करने की तिथि सं. संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
1 2 3
4
5
1. 0382848 भारत बिजली लिमिटेड भा॰मा॰ 335 : 199 13/4/2015
पोस्ट बॉक्स नं॰ 100 ठाणे बेलापुर रोड नये विद्युत रोध्न तेल कलवा, जिला ठाणे-4006012648 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 1 2 3
4
5
2. 7638286 एंपायर इलैक्ट्रिकल इंडस्ट्रीज़ भा॰मा॰ 335 : 199 13/4/2015 101, 102, 104, 26 हेमा इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट नये विद्युत रोध्न तेल सर्वोदया नगर जोगेश्वरी पूर्व, मुंबई-400060
[सं. केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1266.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date No. No. Licensee
Indian standard covered by the cancellation Licence
1. 0382848 Bharat Bijlee Ltd.
IS 335 : 1993 13/04/2015 P.B. No. 100, Thane-Belapur Road, New insulating oils Kalwa Distt: Thane-400601
2. 7638286 Empire Electrical Industries IS 335 : 1993 13/04/2015 101, 102, 104, 26 Hema Indl Estate, New insulating oils Sarvodaya Nagar, Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai-400060
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1267.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपविनियम (5) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैंः-
अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ संख्या संख्या की तिथि का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ वर्ष/माह
वर्ष
1. 7800003813 01/05/2015 लू-मीन इंडस्ट्रीज घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854 : 1997
गाला नं॰ 124 बिल्डिंग नं॰ 3 के लिए स्विच राज प्रभा लैंड मार्क इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट भोईडापाड़ा, सतीवाली रोड वसई पूर्व, जिलाः ठाणे-401208
2. 7800003914 08/05/2015 एपकोस इंडिया प्रा॰ लि॰ एसी पावर तंत्रों के लिए स्वतः भा॰मा॰ 13585 : भाग 1
प्लॉट सं॰ ई-22 से 25 तक ठीक होने वाले 650 वोल्ट 1994 एमआयडीसी एरिया सातपुर तक की रेटीत वोल्टता के जिलाः नासिक-422007 लिए पावर संधरित्र[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2649 क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ संख्या संख्या संख्या की तिथि का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/ वर्ष/माह
वर्ष
3. 7800004007 12/05/2015 वीर प्लास्टिक प्रा॰ लि॰ वस्त्रादि - 50 किलोग्राम भा॰मा॰ 14887 : 2014
क्रम सं॰ 90/1 प्लॉट सं॰ 1 से 4 अनाज की पैकेजिंग के लिए विलेजः कुंभारवाडी नारोली घनत्व पॉलीथिलीन एचडीपीई दादरा एवं नगर हवेली पॉलीप्रोपीलीन (पीपी) बुना
बोरे
4. 7800004108 12/05/2015 पदमावती इन्टरप्राईजेज बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰मा॰ 4250 : 1980
गाला सं॰ 16, पहली मंजिल, (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) कनाल इण्ड. इस्टेट रोड सं॰ 6, दौलत नगर, मुंबई-400066
5. 7800004209 12/05/2015 रीवा इंडस्ट्रीज बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर भा॰मा॰ 4250 : 1980
गाला सं॰ 204, भाऊराव उद्योग नगर (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) बी पी रोड सं. 2 भाईन्दर पूर्व जिलाः ठाणे-401104
6. 7800004310 13/05/2015 दर्शक इंडस्ट्रीज़ घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854 : 1997
16 सिंह कम्पाउण्ड के लिए स्विच
जोगेश्वरी पश्चिम
मुंबई-4001102
7. 7800004411 13/05/2015 राज रतन अप्लायंसेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य भा॰मा॰ 4250 : 1980
श्रीपल इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट बिल्डिंग मिक्सर (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) सं॰ 3 विंग सी गाला सं॰ 17, ग्यानदीप स्कूल के नजदीक वसई पूूर्व जिलाः ठाणे-401208
8. 7800004512 13/05/2015 पवन अप्लायंसेस बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य भा॰मा॰ 4250 : 1980
गोदाम सं॰ ए 9 के वी कम्पाउण्ड मिक्सर (द्रवीपर और ग्राइडर) सुंदर टावर के नजदीक, टी जे रोड अशोक गार्डन के सामने, सीवरी, मुंबई-400015
9. 7800004613 15/05/2015 कोमल इंडस्ट्रीज़ घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों भा॰मा॰ 3854 : 1997
गाला सं॰ 116, राज प्रभा लैंड मार्क के लिए स्विच इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट पहला माला, बिल्डिंग नं॰ 3, सतीवाली रोड वसई पूर्व, जिलाः ठाणे-401208
10. 7800004714 22/05/2015 स्पार्क ईरिगेशन प्रा॰ लि॰ उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली भा॰मा॰ 13488 : 2008
गट सं॰ 332 तरसोद
जिलाः जलगांव-425003
11. 7800004815 22/05/2015 ग्लोबल एंटरप्राईजेज़ उत्सर्जन पाईप प्रणाली भा॰मा॰ 13488 : 2008
प्लॉ सं॰ जे-103 एमआयडीसी
जिलाः जलगांव-425003
2650 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]क्रम लाइसेंस स्वीकृति करने लाइसेंसधरी का नाम एवं पता भारतीय मानक भामा सं॰/ संख्या संख्या संख्या की तिथि का शीर्षक भाग/खण्ड/
वर्ष/माह
वर्ष
12. 7800004916 22/05/2015 ग्लोबल एंटरप्राईजेज़ सिंचाईं उपस्कर-सिचांई भा॰मा॰ 12786 : 1989
प्लॉट सं॰ जे-103 एमआयडीसी लैटरलों हेतु पॉलीथिलीन पाईप जिलाः जलगांव-425003
13. 7800005009 22/05/2015 दातार नौवेऔ एनेरजेटेकनिक लि॰ अवशिष्ट धरा प्रचालित भा॰मा॰ 12640 : भाग 2ः
ई-56 ग्राउंड बी एमआयडीसी अंबाड़ परिपथ-समग्र अतिधरा 2008/आइईसी जिलाः नासिक-422010 सुरक्षा सहित घरेलू 61009-1ः
और समान उपयोग के 1996 लिए ब्रेकर्स
[सं॰ केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः11] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1267.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) Product No. No. Date of the party
IS No./Part/Sec/ Year
1. 7800003813 01/05/2015 LU-min Industries Switches for domestic IS 3854 : 1997 Gala No. 124 Building No. 3 and similar Purposes Raj Prabha Land Mark Industrial Estate, Bhohida Pada, Sativali Road Vasai (East) Distt: Thane-401208
2. 7800003914 08/05/2015 Epcos India Pvt. Ltd. Shunt capacitors of non IS 13585:
E-22 to 25, MIDC, Satpur self healing Part I : 1994 Distt-Nasik-422007 type for ac power systems
having a rated voltage upto and including 650 v
3. 7800004007 12/05/2015 Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Textiles - High Density IS 14887: 2014 Survey No. 90/1, Plot No. 1 Polyethylene (HDPE)/ to 4, Village Polypropylene (PP) Woven Kumbharwadi, Naroli Sacks for packaging 50 kg. Dadra and Nagar Haveli-396230 Food grains
4. 7800004108 12/05/2015 Padmavati Enterprises Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250: 1980 Gala No. 16, First Floor, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Kanal Indl Estate, Road No. 6, Daulat Nagar, Borivali (E) Mimbai- 400066
5. 7800004209 12/05/2015 Riva Industries Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250: 1980 Gala No. 204, Bhaurao (Liquidizes and Grinders) Udyog Nagar, B.P. Cross Road No. 2 Bhayander (E) Distt-Thane-401104[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2651
Sl. Licence Grant Name and address (factory) Product IS No./Part/Sec No. No. Date of the party Year 6. 7800004310 13/05/2015 Darshak Industries Switches for domestic and IS 3854 : 1997
16, Singh Compound, similar purposes
Jogeshwari (W)
Mumbai-400102
7. 7800004411 13/05/2015 Raj Ratan Appliances Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250 : 1980 Shripal Industrial Estate, (Liquidizes and Grinders) Bldg No. 3, Wing C, Gala No. 17, Near Gyandeep School Vasai(E) Distt. Thane-401208
8. 7800004512 13/05/2015 Pavan Appliances Domestic Electric Food-Mixers IS 4250 : 1980 Godown No. 9, K.V. (Liquidizes and Grinders) Compound, Near Sunder Tower, T.J. Road, Opp: Asoke Garden, Sewree Mumbai-400015
9. 7800004613 15/05/2015 Komal Industries Switches for domestic and similar IS 3854 : 1997 Gala No. 116, Raj Prabha purposes Land Mark Indl Estate, First Floor, Bldg. No. 3, Sativali Road Vasai(E) Distt. Thane-401208
10. 7800004714 22/05/2015 Spark Irrigation Pvt Ltd. Emitting pipes system IS 13488 : 2008 Gut No. 332, Tarsod Distt: Jalgaon-425003
11. 7800004815 22/05/2015 Global Enterprises Emitting pipes system IS 13488 : 2008 Plot No. J-103, MIDC Distt: Jalgaon-425003
12. 7800004916 22/05/2015 Global Enterprises Irrigation equipment- IS 12786 : 1989 Plot No. J-103, MIDC polyethylene pipes for Distt: Jalgaon-425003 irregation laterals
13. 7800005009 25/05/2015 Datar Nouveau Residual current operated IS 12640 : Part 2:
Energietechnik Limited circuit breaking for house- 2008 E-56, Ground (B), MIDC hold and similar AMBAD uses - part 2 circuit - Distt: Nashik 422010 breakers with integral
overcurrent protection (revos)
[No. CMD/13:11] T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1268.—भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो (प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 5 के उपविनियम (6) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
एतद्द्वारा अध्सिूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैेः—
2652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]अनुसूची
क्रम लाइसेंस लाइसेसंधरी का नाम एवं पता लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रकम संबद्ध रद्द करने की तिथि संख्या संख्या
भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक
1. 2901856 भैरव इंटस्टत्र््रीज भा॰ मा॰ 3854ः 1997 22/5/2015
प्लांट सं 24/बी, गोल्डन इंटस्टत्र््रीज इस्टेट घरेलू और समान प्रयोजनों के लिए स्विच सोमनाथ रोड दाभेल दमन-396210
[सं. केन्द्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग/13ः13] टी॰ कलैवाणन, प्रमुख (एमयूबीओ-ईईई)
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1268.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulaitons, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each.
SCHEDULE
Sl. Licence Name and address of the Article/process with relevant Date of
No. licence Indian standard covered by the cancellation
Licence
1. 2901856 BHAIRAV INDUSTRIES IS 3854: 1997 22/5/2015
Plot no. 24/B, Golden Indl. Estate, Switches for domestic and similar
Somnath Road, DABEL, purposes
Daman-396210
[No. CMD/13:13]
T. KALAIVANAN, Head (MUBO-EEE)
वस्त्र मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
The Cotton Corportion of India Limited, Plot No. S-5, KWC Kalamboli Ware Housing Complex, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai-410218 (Maharashtra)
[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi] A. MADHUKUMAR REDDY, Jt. Secy.
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय
का.आ. 1269.—केन्द्रीय सरकार , (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनो के लिए) राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिसके 80% से अध्कि कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाध्क ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अध्सिूचित करती हैः—
भारतीय कपास निगम लिमिटेड, प्लांट नं॰ एस-5, केडब्ल्यूसी, कलंबोली वेयर हाउसिंग कॉम्पलैक्स, कलंबोली, नवी मुम्बई-412018 (महाराष्ट्र)
[सं॰ ई-11016/1/2011-हिंदी]
ए॰ मध्ुकुमार रेड्डी, संयुक्त सचिव नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1270.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय न॰1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (111/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
[सं॰ एल-12012/60/2013-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
S.O. 1269.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby noti- fies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles, more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1270.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2653 hereby publishes the Award (Ref.111/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18.06.2015.
[No. L-12012/60/2013-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer 3. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt. be informed.Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt.for publication.
Chandigarh 19-03-2015 S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS-
TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID No. 111 of 2013
Reference No. L-12012/60/2013/IR(B-II) dated 30-9-2013
Sh. Raj Kumar C/o Smt. Shashi Bala Singh, Shri Balaji em- porium, D-329, Main Market, Sonia Vihar, 3rd Pustha Delhi-94.
Workman का.आ. 1271.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (66/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/28/2013-आईआर(बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
Versus
1. The Deputy General Manager, Punjab National
Bank, NIT, Faridabad.
2. The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji
Cama Place, 7 (IR Deptt.) HQ. New Delhi.
Respondents.
S.O. 1271.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 66/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/28/2013-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
Appearances
ANNEXURE
For the workman: None. For the Management: Shri N.K. Zakhmi.
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRISIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR-COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Award Passed on: 19-03-2015
Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L-12012/60/2013/IR (B-II) dated 30.09.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Case No. ID 66 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/28/2013- IR(B-II) dated 24.05.2013. Sh. Nishan Singh son of Shri Ram Singh R/o VPO Mothawali, Distt. Kapurthala. (Punjab) Workman
Versus
":Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar son of late Shri Angad Singh, Ex-Peon w.e.f. 13-08-2007 is just and legal? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the workman nor any claim statement has been filed. On 5.5.14 a request has been received for adjournment of the case for two months. But even after two months none appeared nor any claim statement has been failed. As per record several opportunities have been allowed to file claim statement.None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that the workman is not interested to pursue the present reference. In view of the above the present reference is disposed off for want of prosecution.
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught
Place, 24, Rajinder Place, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local
H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt. Defence Service Wel-
fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
2654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Respondents
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management: Shri. J. S. Sathi Advocate.
AWARD
Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/28/2013-IR(B-II) dated 24.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Nishan Singh, son of Shri Ram Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Officer Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in 2001 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the wokman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2001 to 31.08.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his service were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalnandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The Statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office with include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has wihin its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attandance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty to depute and serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show-cause notice, memorandum, charge- sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2655 admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidatvit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2 to M10. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Nishan Singh joined the service on 19.02.2008 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross- examination that bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their Saving Bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Office. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the workman was not given any retrenchement compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Duputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 19-2-2008 with the management and his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment. will be routed through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 19-2-2008 through respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the2656 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost four years and six months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26500/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondent No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication,
Chandigarh. 09.4.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer 1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canught
Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local
H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).
5. The Deputy Direcotor, Distt, Defence Service Wel-
fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
Respondents
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management: Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1272.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 64/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/20/2013-आईआर(बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1272.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 64/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court- No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/20/2013-IR (B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/20/2013-IR (B-II) dated 23.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Tajinder Pal Singh S/o Sh. Sahib Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 64 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/20/2013-
IR (B-II) dated 23.05.2013.
Sh Tajinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Sahib Singh, R/o VPO Sudar, Near Rayia, Distt. Amritsar (Punjab)
...Workman 2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in 2011 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman by the Management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2011 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2657 notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed from direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
3. Management filed written statement Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the Districtor Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfate Office which include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any suspervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the servie of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference derserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Secuirty Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2 to M8. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Tejinder Pal Singh joined the service on 01.01.2010 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross- examination that bank management excercise control over the work of he workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar, He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respetive accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by2658 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compnsation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 1.1.2010 with the management and his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25.6.2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 1.1.2010 through respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012. The management failed to provide that the above respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost two years and seven months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 19000/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh Dt. 9.4.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1273.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 79/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ंसं॰ एल-12012/22/2013-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2659 New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1273.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/22/2013-IR (B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 79 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/22/2013- IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013. Sh. Kamal Preet Singh son of Shri Shingara Singh, resident of Ward No. 5, House No. 153, Radha Swami Colony Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. (Punjab)
Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab)
5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service Wel- fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
Respondents
For the workman : Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management : Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate 2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially on 6.6.07 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2007 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
AWARD
Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/22/2013-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Kamal Preet Singh son of Shri Shingara Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, 3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para2660 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2 to M7. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Kamalpreet Singh joined the service on 5.6.2007 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross- examination that bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 26619. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of the managment in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 5.6.2007 with the management and his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide lette dated 25.6.2013 it is informed by the above that his officer was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the managment to call-ex- servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. vide letter dated June, 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr. Cheques.
retrenchment compensation as per Section 25F(b)@15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26250/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh 09.04.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1274.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय न. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 80/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/23/2013-आई.आर. (बी-II) रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1274.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80/2013) of the Central Government Industrial-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18.06.2015.
[No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 80 of 2013
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 5.6.2007 through respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent no. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the managment for almost five years and one month. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and Reference No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II) dated 30.05.2013.
Sh. Daljit Singh son of Shri Gurdarshan, resident of Village Kattowal, P.O.
Dhaddar, District Hoshiarpur (Punjab)
...Workman2662 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught
Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local
H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt. Defence Service Wel-
fare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
...Respondents
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management: Shri J. S. Sathi, Advocate any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employees between the management and the workman and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
AWARD
Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification Reference No. L-12012/23/2013-IR(B-II) dated 30.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Daljit Singh son Shri Gurdarshan Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by of Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Officer, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Serviceman from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially on 13.08.08 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2008 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without 3. Management filed written statement, Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleased by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on his and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record lf the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2663 need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex.M2 to M7. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Daljit Singh joined the service on 13.8.2008 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination that bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para I of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned cousel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1.8.2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is furher submitted by the learned counsel for the the workman that exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 13.8.2008 with the management and his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and Sainik Welfare Officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
2664 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25.6.2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call Ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent No.5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that Ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent No.5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1. चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 78/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/18/2013-आई आर (बी-II) रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1275.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/18/2013-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 78 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/8/2013-IR (B-II) dated 28.05.2013. Sh. Shadi Lal son of Shri Jeet Singh R/o VPO Badala, Mohalla Rjpur, Hoshiyarpur.(Punjab)
...Workman
Versus
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 13.8.2008 through respondent No.5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1.8.2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent No.5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost four years. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication. Chandigarh 09.04.2015
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught
Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local
H.Q.Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisonal General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar(Punjab).
4. The manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar(Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service
Welfare Office, Jalandhar(Punjab).
...Respondent
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management : Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate.
AWARD
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1275.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय ेसरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/18/2013-IR(B-III) dated 28.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2665"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Shadi Lal son of Shri Jeet Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially on 7.4.2011 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidiavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 7.4.2011 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, showcause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the managment and the workman and no retrenchement compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to re-instate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions were issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of 3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Officer at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability2666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2 to M8. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Shadi Lal joined the service on 26.3.2011 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination that bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the managment was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the managment. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 26.3.2011 with the management and his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Officer Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined that management bank on 26-3-2011 through respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2667
Versus
above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost one year and four months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 12000/ - (twelve thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 12000/- (twelve thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication. Chandigarh.
09-04-2015 S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught
Place, 24 Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local
H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service
Welfare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
...Respondents
For the Workman : Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the Management : Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate
AWARD
का.आ. 1276.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 65/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/31/2013-आई आर (बी-II)]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1276.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 65/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/31/2013-IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Kulwant Singh son of Shri Mohinder Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If Not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.
Case No. ID 65 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/31/2013- IR(B-II) dated 23.05.2013. Sh. Kulwant Singh, S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o VPO Khandpur, Distt. Kapurthala. (Punjab)
...Workman 2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Serviceman from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in 2008 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in2668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the service of the management from 2008 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record of the Security Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2 to M10. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Kulwant Singh joined the service on 01.02.2008 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross- examination that Bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of the District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2669 that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which
will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during
arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through
Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between
the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be
made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service. Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same
were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the
workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for
the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 1-2-2008 with the management and his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent No. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 1-2-2008 through respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost four years and six months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 26500/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
2670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 27000/- (twenty seven thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh 09.04.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
3. The Divisional General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar Distt. Jalandhar (Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Office, Model Town, Jalandhar (Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service
Welfare Office, Jalandhar (Punjab).
Respondents
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate For the management: Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate
AWARD
Passed on 09.04.2015
का.आ. 1277.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बक के प्रबंध्तंत्र संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 81/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/24/2013-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1277.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 81/2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/24/2013-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer 1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/24/2013-IR(B-II) dated 30.5.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Baldev Singh son of Shri Gurmukh Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 81 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/24/2013- IR(B-II) dated 30.05.2013. Sh. Baldev Singh son of Shri Gurmukh Singh, resident of Village Kattowal, P.O. Dhaddar, District Hoshiarpur. (Punjab)
Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught
Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Local
H.Q. Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e.respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in 2008 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches of bank including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2008 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2671 and employee between the management and the workman
and no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him
at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded
that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless
since his termination. He prayed for direction to the
management to reinstate him in service with continuity
and full back wages with all benefits.
3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary
objection has been taken that there existed no relationship
of employer and employee between the claimant and the
management as there was not supervision and control of
the management on the workman. The applicant does not
come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is
pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed
by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he
was deputed as Guard in the bank by the Ditrict Sainik
Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director
i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the
workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which
include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity.
His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary
control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik
Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of
Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed
security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in
the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in
Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of
retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer
woruld not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has
no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to
change the service provider/contractor especially when
the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing
practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On
merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards
are permitted by the Central Government to engage through
contractor and thus they are engaged through agency.
The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed
in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and
respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as
Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by
the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any
supervision or control over the claimant and management
did not maintained any attendance record of the Security
Guard deputed by Sainik Welfare Office. As the District
Welfare Office had a liberty to depute any servicemen on
security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever
completed 240 days of continued service in any year,
therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant
by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any
show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank
and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he
was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with
documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions was issued by the bank to him. He also
admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2
to M9. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Baldev Singh joined the service on 13.8.2008 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross-examination
that bank management exervices control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman
salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit sepecified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that
para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other person were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
2672 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee for Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman.The above agency used to be service provider and the management was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any apointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the management.The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 13.8.2008 with the management and his services were terminated on 1-8-2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and Sainik Welfare Officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent No. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the managment. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent No. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined the management bank on 13.8.2008 through respondent No. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent No. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for almost four years. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/- making this amount rounded to Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh 09.04.2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2673
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 18 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1278.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध् बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (82/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/33/2013-आई आर (बी-II) ] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 18th June, 2015
S.O. 1278.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 82/2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/33/2013-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Passed on 09.04.2015
1. Government of India Ministry of Labour vide notification L-12012/33/2013-IR(B-II) dated 29.05.2013 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Jalandhar in terminating the services of Sh. Navreet Singh son of Shri Gurcharan Singh w.e.f. 01.08.2012 who was engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank through Distt. Defence Service Welfare Office, Jalandhar is just, valid and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter?"
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,
CHANDIGARH
Case No. ID 82 of 2013. Reference No. L-12012/33/2013- IR(B-II) dated 29.05.2013. Sh. Navreet Singh son of Shri Gurucharan Singh R/o Village Aladinpur, PO Khosropur, District Jalandhar (Punjab).
...Workman
Versus
1. The Chairman, Punjab and Sind Bank, Canaught
Place, 24, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi.
2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Local
H.Q.Sector-17, Chandigarh.
3. The Divisonal General Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Model Town, Jalandhar, Distt. Jalandhar(Punjab).
4. The Manager Security, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal
Officer, Model Town, Jalandhar(Punjab).
5. The Deputy Director, Distt, Defence Service Welfare
Office Jalandhar(Punjab).
...Respondent
For the workman: Shri G.S. Raghav, Advocate
For the management : Shri J.S. Sathi, Advocate 2. The case of the workman as per the claim statement is that he is an ex-Service man from defence services and he got his name registered at Distt. Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar. The management i.e. respondent No. 3 Divisional Zonal Manager and Manager Security wanted the service of the Security Guard and they approached Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Director, District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. The workman appeared in interview and he was engaged as Security Guard initially in 2005 by Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Jalandhar after checking of relevant record related with the qualification, experience and relieving certificate issued by the Army and an affidiavit was also got executed from the workman by the management. It is pleaded by the workman that he was posted in various branches including ATM machines. He also possessed armed licence and weapon along with ammunition and he remained continuously in the service of the management from 2005 to 31.07.2012 and completed more than 240 days service in preceding year. It is pleaded by the workman that his services were illegally terminated on 01.08.2012 without any memo, show cause notice, charge-sheet and no inquiry was conducted and termination of the workman is against the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act as there is a relationship of employer and employee between the managment and the workman and no retrenchement compensation has been paid to him at the time of termination of his service. It is further pleaded that he was drawing Rs. 7500/- per month and he is jobless since his termination. He prayed for direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages with all benefits.
3. Management filed written statement. Preliminary objection has been taken that there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the management as there was no supervision and control of the management on the workman. The applicant does not come under the umbrella of definition of the workman. It is pleaded by the management that the claimant was appointed by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Officer and he2674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] application to the bank for the post of Security Guard nor he was issued any appointment letter. No arms and ammunitions were issued by the bank to him. He also admitted that no letter of terminating his service was issued by the bank. He denied the suggestion that after terminating his services, bank asked him to join the new security agency which was engaged by the bank to provide the Security Guard. The management in evidence submitted affidavit of one Sandeep Singh who also relied on documents Ex. M2 to M11. In cross-examination the witness stated that the workman Navreet Singh joined the service on 01.05.2008 and his service were terminated on 01.08.2012 and at the time of termination, no notice of termination was issued to him and no departmental inquiry was conducted. His last drawn salary was Rs. 7500/-. He stated in the cross- examination that bank management exercises control over the work of the workman. He also stated that salary cheque was issued in the name of District Sainik Welfare, Jalandhar. He also stated that bank has been paying salary to the workman in their saving bank account. He further stated that Sainik Welfare Office authorized the bank to credit the workman salary in their respective accounts and there was no contract of the bank with Sainik Welfare Officer. He also stated that at the time of initial appointment, affidavit was also taken from the workman and para 3 of the affidavit specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice. He further stated that para 1 of the affidavit specified that bank will pay Rs. 5500/- per month towards wages to the workman through District Sainik Welfare Office, Jalandhar, which will be accepted to him. He further stated that in place of the workman other persons were engaged through private agency.
6. I have heard the parties and gone through the evidence
and record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the workman during arguments submitted that the workman was engaged with the management through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. He was interviewed by the Manager Security Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Jalandhar. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the payment by cheque made to the workman through Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar. At the time of termination on 1-8-2012 the workman was not given any retrenchment compensation notice for one month or pay in lieu of notice. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman.
was deputed as Guard in the bank by the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Jalandhar and used to get salary/wages from Deputy Director Sainik Welfare Office at the rate offered by the Deputy Director i.e. Respondent No. 5 and the same was accepted by the workman also. The statutory deduction of the workman used to be made by Sainik Welfare Office which include provident fund and liability of payment of gratuity. His supervision and control, sanction of leave, disciplinary control was exercised by Deputy Director, District Sainik Welfare Office. It is further pleaded that engagement of Security Guard in the bank through service provider/reputed security agency is para materia to engagement of SPOs in the bank through Punjab Police during the terrorism in Punjab and the claimant after his attaining the age of retirement and getting benefits from Government exchequer would not bestow statutes of workman on him and he has no legal right as the bank has within its prerogative to change the service provider/ contractor especially when the service provider flatly refused to abide by the ongoing practice ever since the inception of the arrangement. On merits it is pleaded by the management that Security Guards are permitted by the Central Government to engage through contractor and thus they are engaged through agency. The claimant was engaged as Security Guard and deputed in the bank by respondent No. 5 on intermediate days and respondent No. 5 was free to depute any service meant as Guard in the Bank. The claimant was never appointed by the bank. The bank authorities never exercise any supervision or control over the claimant and management did not maintained any attendance record of the Security Guard deputed Sainik Welfare Office. As the District Welfare Office had liberty to depute any serviceman on security and as such it is denied that the claimant ever completed 240 days of continued service in any year, therefore, there is no question of termination of claimant by the bank and there was no need for issuance of any show cause notice, memorandum, charge sheet etc. as well as payment of retrenchment compensation. The claimant deputed at the ATM of Punjab and Sind Bank against through Sainik Welfare Office not the employee of the bank and therefore, there is no question of termination of his service and need for compliance of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947. It is prayed by the management that as the salary/allowance used to be paid by respondent No. 5 at the rate respondent No. 5 deem fit, therefore, he is not entitled to reinstatement in the service of the bank as he was never appointed by the bank and nor any order of termination were passed by the bank, therefore the reference deserved to be rejected.
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit along with documents. The workman was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management. The workman in cross- examination admitted that he never submitted any
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was the employee of Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar as he was deputed by the above Agency for security guard duty. The payment of wages used to be made to the above security agency i.e. Deputy Director[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2675 District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar which was responsible for deduction of provident fund and other statutory deductions. It is further submitted that the Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar fixed the wages of the workman and accordingly the same were paid to the workman. The above agency used to be service provider and the managment was within its right to take the services of the workman through the above service provider. In the above facts and circumstances, there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman and the workman was rightly not engaged w.e.f. 1.8.2012 and he is not entitled to any retrenchment compensation, notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 are not applicable.
9. From the record it is revealed that the workman never submitted any application directly to the management for the post of security guard. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman was not issued any appointment letter. It is also admitted position that workman was registered with Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar who deputed the workman for security duty with the respondent management. He was also not issued any arms and ammunition by the managment. The witness of the management in cross examination stated that workman joined the services on 1.5.2008 with the management and his services were terminated on 1.8.2012. The witness further stated that bank management exercise control on the workman and bank has been paying salary to the workman in his saving bank account and sainik welfare officer authorized the bank to credit the salary in the account of the workman. It is further stated by the witness of the management that at the time of initial appointment affidavit was given by the workman, which specified that services of the workman can be terminated after paying one month notice.
10. Respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar did not put up appearance before this court. However vide letter dated 25-6-2013 it is informed by the above that his office was only sponsoring agency and usually asked by the management to call ex-servicemen for interview and selected by security officer of the bank.
11. From the above it is clear that the respondent no. 5 sponsored the workman for guard duty with the management. The salary cheques issued in the name of respondent no. 5 and on authorization the salary used to be credit to the saving account of the workman. Vide letter dated June 2007, it was agreed that ex-servicemen would be paid Rs. 5500/- per month and payment will be routed through respondent no. 5 in the form of DD/Mgr Cheques.
12. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that workman joined that management bank on 1.5.2008 through respondent no. 5 i.e. Deputy Director District Defence Service Welfare Office Jalandhar and worked till 1-8-2012. The management failed to prove that the above respondent no. 5 was the service provider. In the facts and circumstances the workman worked for the respondent management. Admittedly no notice, retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. It is also the fact that the workman was not issued any appointment letter and termination letter. In the above circumstances, as the workman worked for the management, he is entitled to be paid at least the terminal dues at the time of his termination. The workman worked for the management for four years and two months. He is entitled for pay for one month as notice period and retrenchment compensation as per Section 25 F (b) @ 15 days average pay for each completed year of continuous service. Thus the amount so computed comes to Rs. 22500/- making this amount rounded to (twenty three thousand only). The workman is entitled to get this amount from management respondents No. 1 to 4.
13. The management is directed to pay Rs. 23000/- (twenty three thousand only) to the workman within one month from the date of publication. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication.
Chandigarh 09-04-2015
S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1279.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफसीआई के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट वाद संख्या 2/2014 (संदर्भ संख्या 138/97) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/170/1996-आईआर (सी-II)]
मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1279.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Complaint No. 2/2014 (Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as showin in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/6/2015.
[No. L-22012/170/1996-IR(C-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer2676 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
self same relief the workman became unsuccessful before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, can again he comes to this Tribunal.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1) DHANBAD
In the matter of complaint U/s 33(a) of I.D. Act, 1947.
Complaint No. 2/2014
(Arising out of Ref. No. 138/97)
Ministry Order No. L 22012/170/96-IR (C-II)
VijayendraKumar, AG II (D) Food Corporation of India, Area Officer Firdause Building Exhibition Raod, Patna....... ....... .....Complainant
Vs.
1. Executive Director (EZ) F.C.I
10 A Midleton Row, Kolkata 71
2. General Manager,
F.C.I. Arunachal Building Exhibition Road, Patna
3. General Manager
F.C.I. Khadya Bhawan, Bani Bihar Bhubneshwar
4. Area Manager
F.C.I Firdaus Building Exhibition Road, Patna-1...................... Opp. Party 4. Hon'ble Apext Court, in the case in hand said that "the case is dismised, workman may seek relief in appropriate forum". It is submitted by the workman that he ultimately approached this Tribunal.
5. It is not disputed that the workman concerned is not the Union leader. From his transfer, it appears that the workman has been discriminated. Even no substitute was nominated in the order as to whom the transferred would hand over charge.
6. Food corporation of India staff has to handle bigger responsibilty i.e. food grain storage and collection of cash. Unless the charge is handed over to a responsible nominated person one cannot be fully released. More over transfer at fag end of service i.e. the superannuation is on 31.01.2014 is anti labour practice when the reference is pending. There was no problem for the management to take permission of this Tribunal, before transferring workman according to law.
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For Complaint. : Sri V. Kumar,
For Opp. Party No. III : Sri D.K. Sethi,
State : Bihar.
Industry : Food
Dated:19/5/2015
7. It is seen from the management of FCI that they are spending more on litigation than on welfare of the labour force. In just case action should be taken. This Tribunal would not have commented like above. In the circumstances the present complaint is bound to succeed and the workman be placed in his place prior to his transfer to other region, Since he has not been relived from Patna in question of issuance of chargesheet dt. 30.01.14 for not joining Orissa region does not arise. Complaint Succeeds..
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
AWARD
2. Complaint received on 23.01.2014, which arises out of Ref. No. 138 of 1997. Admitted the same. Notice Issued to other side. This complaint is on the ground that, Admittedly Ref. No. 138/97 is pending, in which the present complainant is a workman concerned, while a reference case is pending before this Tribunal, can the workman concerned be transferred from one region to another region. Whether his transfer is malafide? Whether the transferred workman was allowed time to hand over entire charge of his office, cash, godown etc. to a proper workman notified by the managnement or not.
3. On the other hand whether the present workman's complaint is maintainable? Another fact that when for the का.आ. 1280.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीबीएमबी के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1542/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/6/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं॰ एल-23012/1/2008-आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1280.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1542/2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2677 dispute between the management of Circle, BBMB, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-23012/1/2008-IR(CM-II)] MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer 25H of the Act and the action of the management in not providing employment to him is improper and he is entitled to full back wages.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNEMNT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
Case I.D. No. 1542/2008
Registered on 26.5.2008
Sh. Ram Lal, S/o Sh. Sant Ram, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, General Secretary, Pb.INTUC, 211-L Brari, PO Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar.
...Petitioner Management submitted a written statement on 26.5.2010 pleading that the workman from 1984 to 1993 on daily wage basis for casual and seasonal work. It is further pleaded that some workmen were engaged in November, 2006 on contract basis and the workman along with others was also called for interview, but he did not appear. He was again called for temporary work but he refused to work stating that his case was pending in the Court. That the claim raised by the workman is false.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In Support of this case the workman appeared in witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the claim petition.
Versus
The superintending Engineer, Dehar Power House Circule, BBMB (Power Wing), Slapper, Distt. Mandi (HP) Mandi.
...Respondents On the other hand, the management has examined Sh. K.L. Kalra, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of the management.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and
Sh. Ravinder Sharma, counsel for the management.
Appearances
For the workman Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.
For the Management Sh. Ravinder Sharma, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 29.5.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/1/ 2008-IR(CM-II) Dated 19.5.2008, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of BBMB in not engaging Sh. Ram Lal, a retrenched workman while engaging fresh casual labourers in November, 2006 is legal and justified? To what relief is the claimant entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he served the respondent management from 1984 to 1993 as unskilled worker and was retrenched. It is further pleaded that management was making recruitments in a particular category but he was ignored. That new hands were recruited w.e.f. 1.1.2006 but he was not re-employed. The management adopted the method of pick and choose and caused loss to him. That he was entitled to be re-employed as per Section The undisputed facts are that workman worked with the respondent management as unskilled worker from 1984 to 1993 when his services were retrenched, though it is the case of the management that he was engaged as daily wage worker for casual and seasonal work. It is again in admitted case that the management engaged some workers in November, 2006. It is the case of the management that the workman was called for interview but he did not appear. He was again called for temporary work but he refused to come stating that his case was pending in the Court. It was so deposed by Sh. K.L. Kalra, but he did not produce any record to establish that the workman was actually called in November, 2006 and thereafer he has stated that the letter was sent through registered post but no postal receipt is placed on record or other record of the management to prove that intimation was sent to the workman to come and work with the management.Sh. K.L. Kalra has further deposed during cross-examination that workman was called in 2009 and letter dated 13.10.2009 Annexure-4 is also placed on the file showing that workman was offered employment for 30 days as Baildar. This statement on the part of Sh. K.L. Kalra along with letter Annexure-A4 totally belies the case of the management that workman was informed in November, 2006 when some workers were employed and he was again called for work but he refused. Since it is the admitted case that workman is a retrenched employee and therefore preference should be given to him for re-employment as per Section 25F of the Act. The management employed certain persons in2678 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
November, 2006 but preference was not given to the workman and therefore this act of the management in not engaging the workman while engaging fresh casual labour in November, 2006 is not legal and justified.
Now the next question which needs determination is to what amount the claimant is entitled to by way of compensation.
PRESENT : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer. Case I.D. No. 620/2005 Registered on 24.8.2005
Sh. Ajit Singh, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, 211-L, Brari,
PO Partap Nagar, Nangal Dam, Ropar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB,
Nangal Township, Ropar.
...Respondents
Appearances
Though, the workman pleaded that the workmen were employed in November, 2006 who are still continuing in service, but there is no evidence to corroborate this fact and in the absence of the any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the workman re-employed in November, 2006 has been continuously working till date. There is no evidence to establish the salary of the workman when he was employed with the management. Therefore, the compensation payable to the workman cannot be assessed. However, by doing the guess work the management is to be ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the workman for not giving him employment in November, 2006.
For the workman Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
In result, the reference is answered holding that the action of the management in not engaging the workman while engaging fresh casual labourer in November, 2006 is not legal and he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation from the management who shall pay the same within 2 months from the publication of the award failing which the workman will be entitled to get interst at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award till realization. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government
for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1281.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बीबीएमबी के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 620/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/6/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था
[सं॰ एल-23012/10/2001-आई आर (सीएम-II)] मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1281.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 620/2005) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute betwen
the management of BBMB, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-23012/10/2001-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
Passed on 21/5
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/10/ 2001-IR (CM-II) Dated 3.5.2002, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB Nangal Township, Ropar in terminating the service of Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh w.e.f. 7.7.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was engaged as Grinderman in a work charge capacity at Ganguwal and Kotla Power Houses w.e.f. 8.5.1997 where he continuously worked till 28.2.1999. He was again employed w.e.f. 9.2.2000 to 7.7.2000. That he has completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar month but his services were terminated without giving him any compensation or seeking any permission from the Government. Therefore his termination is illegal and void.
Respondent management pleaded that the workman was engaged purely on contract basis for a specific period vide letter dated 28.4.1997 (Exhibit MW1/1) for a period of six months, and again for another period of six months vide letter dated 7.11.1997 (Exhibit MW1/2). After considerable time, the workman again made a request to the management and he was engaged vide appointment letter dated 8.2.2000[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2679 and since he was engaged for a specific period and on the
expiry of the period, his services came to an end
automatically and his case do not fall within the definition of retrencfhment. That the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of his case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the management examined Sh. A.K. Mehta, who filed his affidavit along with the documents
reiterating the stand of the management.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, AR of the workman
and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman that workman was engaged from time to time by issuing
fresh appointment letters which is an unfair labour practice and otherwise the work was of continuous nature and his
services were not liable to be terminated.
The reference is whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 7.7.2000
is legal. As per appointment letters dated 28.4.1997 (Exhibit MW1/1), 7.11.1997 (Exhibit MW1/2), 5.6.1998
Exhibit MW1/3 and January, 1999 Exhibit MW1/6, the workman was employed on a work charge post for a
specific period which find mention therein and it is the
case of the workman that the worked only upto 28.2.1999 and was re-engaged on 9.2.2000. An agreement was also
executed between the parties as is clear from the photocopy of the agreement Exhibit MW1/8 and it is
clearly mentioned therein that the contract of employment
was only upto 7.7.2000 and in pursuance of the said contract the appointment letter dated 8.2.2000 Exhibit
MW1/9 was issued. Thus, the workman was lastly employed for a specific period and on the expiry of the
contractual period, his services came to an end and his case do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment'
Retrenchment is defined under Section 2(oo) which reads
as follows:-
2(oo)- Retrenchment means the termination by the
employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment
inflicated by way of disciplinary action but does
not include-
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf.
Thus, as per Clause 'bb' the termination of the service as a result of non-renewal of contract or the expiry of the such contract, the same do not amount to 'retrenchment'. Since in the present case the service was on contract basis and for a specific period and on the expiry of the period it automatically came to an end and therefore the disengagement of the workman do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any compensation.
In the Circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel that the management entered into unfair labour practice is without any basis. The provisions of Section 25G and 25H are also not applicable in the present case.
The services of the workman came to an end on 7.7.2000 and it is his own case that he was engaged only on 9.2.2000 and therefore it cannot be said that he completed 240 days of continuous service preceding the date of his disengagement and on that account also he cannot claim any retrenchment compensation.
In result, the reference in answered against the workman and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1282.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बीबीएमबी के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 207/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-23012/13/2001-आई आर (सीएम-II)]
मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1282.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 207/ 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of BBMB, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-23012/13/2001-IR(CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer2680 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 207/2005
Registered on 3.8.2005
Sh. Amarjit Singh, C/o Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar, 211-L, Brari, PO Partap Nagar, Nandal Dam, Ropar
...Petitioner 5.6.1998 for another six months; and on the expir of the contract period his services automatically came to an end. He again approached the respondent management and he was issued a fresh appointment letter dated 5.2.2000 on contract basis and the period of service was upto 4.7.2000. On the expiry of the said period his services came to an end. Since the workman was working on contract basis for aspecific work and as such his case do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any compensation. It is also denied that he completed 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year.
Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence.
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB, Nangal Township, Ropar.
...Respondents The workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the management has examined Sh. A.K. Mehta, who filed his affidavit along with the documents reiterating the stand taken by the management.
APPEARANCES :
It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman
that workman was engaged from time to time by issuing
For the Workman Sh. R.K. Parmar, A.R. fresh appointment letters which is an unfair labour practice
For the Management Sh. Rajinder Singh, and otherwise the work was of continuous nature and his
Law Officer. services were not liable to be terminated.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
AWARD
Passed on 27/5/2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/13/ 2001-IR(CM-II) Dated 30.4.2002, by exercising its powers under Section 10, sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the Chief Engineer (Power Wing) Generation, BBMB Nangal Township, Ropar in terminating the service of Sh. Amarjit Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh w.e.f. 4.7.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed as a Rigger by the respondent management in the Ganguwal and Kotla Power Houses w.e.f. 8.5.1997 and he continuously worked till 28.2.1999. He was again employed on 8.2.2000 till 4.7.2000. That his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. He completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the Act were also not complied.
The respondent management filed written reply pleading that the workman was employed on contract basis for a specific period and for a specific work. He was firstly engaged vide appointment letter dated 28.4.1997 as Rigger for six months, and again vide appointment letter dated 7.11.1997 for another six months; and again vide letter dated It may be added that the reference is whether the termination of the workman w.e.f. 4.7.2000 is legal and justified. The appointment letter dated 28.4.1997 Exhibit MW1/1, 7.11.1997 Exhibit MW1/2 and dated 5.8.1998 Exhibit MW1/3 has been placed on the record which clearly shows that the workman was engaged on contract basis for a specific period i.e. for six months from time to time only and it is his own case that his services came to an end on 28.2.1999. Again it is the case of the workman that he was engaged w.e.f. 8.2.2000 to 4.7.2000. Thus after the disengagement of the workman in the year 1999, he was engaged in February, 2000. There is an appointment letter Exhibit MW5 which was issued in pursuance of the agreement Exhibit WW1/5 executed between the workman and the management and perusal of the agreement and the letter clearly shows that the workman was engaged only upto 4.7.2000 and that too for a specific work for renovatin, modernization etc. of machines. Since, he was engaged on contract basis for a specific period, his services came to an end on the expiry of the contract period i.e. 4.7.2000 and since he worked from 8.2.2000 to 4.7.2000 as pleaded by him, it cannot he said that he completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar period prior to the termination of his services. Retrenchment is defined under Section 2(oo) which reads as follows:-
2(oo)- Retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicated by way of disciplinary action but does not include-[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2681
ANNEXURE
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT II, CHANDIGARH.
between the employer and the workman concerned
contains a stipulation in that behalf.
Present; Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1305/2007
Thus, as per Clause 'bb' the termination of the service
as a result of non-renewal of contract or the expiry of the
such contract, the same do not amount to 'retrenchment'.
Since in the present case the service was on contract basis
and for a specific period and on the expiry of the period it
automatically came to an end and therefore the Registered on 4.5.2007
Sh. Sultan Singh S/o Sh. Man Singh, resident of Village
Dadupur Rodan, P.O. Sirsi, Karnal
...Petitioner
Versus
disengagement of the workman do not fall within the
definition of 'retrenchment' and he is not entitled to any
compensation.
In the Circumstances, the contention of the learned
counsel that the management entered into unfair labour The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt,
Karnal, Haryana
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
practice is without any basis. The provisions of Section
25G and 25H are also not applicable in the present case.
The reference is accordingly answered against the For the Workman Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
workman and it is held that he is not entitled to any relief.
Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Passed on 29.5.2015
Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1283.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफसीआई के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1305/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/340/2006-आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1283.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1305/2007) of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh as show in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-22012/340/2006-IR (CM-II)]
MD. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/340/ 2006-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.3.2007, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:–
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Sh. Sultan Singh, Security Guard s/o Sh. Man Singh w.e.f. 9.10.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was working as a Security Guard since 1986 with the respondent management who terminated his services vide letter dated 9.10.2000. It is pleaded that a case was filed for regularization of his services and instead of regularizing his services, he was terminated. That he has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and he was not paid retrenchment compensation. That the persons junior to him were retained in service. Thus the management contravened the provisions of the Act and he be reinstated in service.
Responsdent management filed written reply controverting the averments and denited that there was any relationship of employer and employee between the parties. That the workman was never engaged by the respondent corporation. It is pleaded that corporation has given contract to M/s. Ex-servicement Security Service,2682 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Kurukshetra vide agreement dated April, 1989 Annexure M1 and it was the contractor who provided the security guards. That some of the workers filed a writ petition No. 7999 of 1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed and the SLP preferred by them was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2002. That security guards were disengaged by the corporation to avoid any further litigation. However the security guards were not the employees of the corporation who used to make the payment to the contractor who was also responsible to deduct the EPF etc. That services of the workman were not terminated by the corporation.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of his case, workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the claim petiton.
On the other hand, the respondent management has examined Dr. Rajesh Gulia, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of hte management along with the documents.
I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Counsel for the workman
and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the workment that workman is an employee of the corporation who was engaged since 1986 and his services were terminated by the District Manager vide order dated 9.10.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act and therefore the termination of his service is illegal. He has further submitted that the corporation who allege that the workman was an employee of the contractor did not examine the contractor, as much as, the corporation did not produce the record despite moving an aplicaiton and therefore adverse inference be also taken against it to hold that workan is an employee of the corporation.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
The corportation is a statutory body and has its rules and regulations for appointing the persons in the corporation. Nothing has come on the file that any procedure was followed while giving the allgeged appointment to the workman. Again no evidence whatsoever has been led by the workman to prove that it was the corporation who used to pay him salary. It was argued that the corporation used to pay the salary to the workan but on simple assertions, it cannot be held that it was the corporation who was paying the salary to the workman without maintaining any record. Since it is not proved that any procedure was followed while appointing the workman and he was paid any pay at any point of time by the corporation it cannot be said that he was an employee of the corporation as much as the respondent corporation has taken a definite stand that it has given contract for security guards. Since the corporation denies the relationship with teh workman and therefore the non- production of the record is of no consequence. It was for the workman to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence on the file that he was ever employed by the corporation and there is only his bare statement in this respect which cannot be acted upon in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Here the learned counsel argued that it was the corporation who used to mark duty to the workman. Even if it is taken that duty was marked to the workman by officer of the corporation, the same do not make him an employee of the corporation as the security guards were given by the contractor and work was to be taken for them by deploying them at different places and simply marking of the duty by the corporation do not make the workman as its employee. The learned counsel also carried me through the letter dated 9.10.2000 Mark A to submit that the workman was disengaged by the corporation which is sufficient to hold that he was an employee of the corporation. This letter was addressed to Assistant Manager, karnal by the District Officer, Karnal intimating disengagement of the security gurads and it was not addressed directly to the workman. It can only be said that intimation was given to the concerned office regarding the disengagement of the security guards and otherwise services of the security guards were not terminated by the said letter. Otherwise also the said letter do not prove by any stretch of imagination that workman was ever employed by the corporation in view of the reasons discussed above. Non-examination of the contractor by the FCI also do not advance the case of the workman and it was for him to prove that he was an employee of the corporation which he has failed to prove.
Thus, it is held that workman has failed to prove that there was any relationship of employee and employer between the parties and being so, it cannot be said that services were tereminated by the respondent management.
In result, the reference is answered holding that workman is not entitled to any relief. :Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1284.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफसीआई के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1123/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/302/1999-आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो॰ जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2683 New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1284.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1123/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as show in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-22012/302/1999-IR (CM-II)] Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer prohibited which has also been prohibited by Notification No. 779(E) dated 9.12.1976. That the engagement of the contractor was an eye wash to deprive the workers of their rights. They have worked with dedication and are entitled to regularization of their services and all the benefits.
ANNEXURE
Respondent Corporation filed written reply controverting the averments and pleaded that workmen were never engaged by the corporation as its employee. The corporation has given the contract to M/s. Ex- servicemen Security Services who used to make necessary contribution of EPF on behalf of the workmen. That there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I. D. No. 1123/2005
Registered on 22.9.2005
Sh. Sultan Singh and Others, S/o Sh. Man Singh, Village
Dadupur Rodan, P.O.: Sirsi, Karnal
...Petitioner In support of their case Sh. Jai Pal, workman and Sh. Sultan Singh, workman appeared in the witness box and filed their respective affidavits supporting the stand taken in the statement of claim.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh. Girish Kumar, who filed his affidavit supporting the stand of the respondent corporation.
I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel for the workman and
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt.
Karnal, Haryana
...Respondents Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
APPEARANCES
For the workman : Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv.
For the Management : Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. It was argued by the learned counsel for the workmen that Sultan Singh and Others continuously worked with the respondent management for a sufficient long time and as such are entitled to regularization of their services and the contract given by the respondent management to the contract of employing the security guards is an eye wash.
AWARD
Passed on 29.5.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/302/ 99-IR (CM-II) Dated 24.1.2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of FCI is not regularizng the services of Sh. Sultan Singh and 23 others engaged under Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 in FCI after notification No. 779 (E) dated 9.12.1976 came into operation is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workmen submitted statement of claim pleading that workmen were working at FCI Depots at Karnal, Jundla, Taraori and Nissing and they have been removed from service by the Corporation. As per Notification dated 29.11.1985 under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act; the employment of contract labour is It may be added that there is nothing on the file that the workmen were ever employed by the respondent corporation. No appointment letter has been placed on the file as much as nothing has come on the record that they were ever paid wages by it. In the absence of payment of wages by the corporation to the workmen, it cannot be said that they were ever employed by it. When it is so, they cannot claim regularization of their services.
Again the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1806 has observed that the employees who are not appointed by observing the regular procedure and rules are not entitled to regularization of their services. There is nothing on the file that the workmen were ever employed by the respondent corporation by following any rules and as such they are not entitled to regularization of their services.
In result, the reference is accordingly answered against the workmen and they are not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer2684 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1285.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफसीआई के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1301/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/6/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था
[सं॰ एल-22012/341/2006-आईआर (सीएम-II)] मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2015
S.O. 1285.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1301/2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute betwen the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-22012/341/2006-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of Sh. Jai Pal, Security Guard s/o Sh. Man Singh w.e.f. 9.10.2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workmen appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was working as a Security Guard w.e.f. 1.5.1992 with the respondent management who terminated his services vide letter dated 9.10.2000. It is pleased that as case was filed for regularizing his services, he was terminated. That he has completed 240 days of service in a calendar year and he was not paid retrenchment compensation. That the persons junior to him were retained in service. Thus the management contravened the provisions of the Act and he be reinstated in service.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.1301/2007
Registered on 4.5.2007
Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh. Man Singh, resident of Village Dadupur
Rodan, P.O. Sirsi, Karnal.
...Petitioner Respondent management filed written reply controverting the averments and denied that there was any relationship of employer and employee between the parties. That the workman was never engaged by the respondent corporation. It is pleased that corporation has given contract to M/s. Ex-servicemen Security Service, Kurukshetra vide agreement dated April, 1989 Annexure M1 and it was the contractor who provided the security guards. The some of the workers filed a writ petition No. 7999 of 1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed and the SLP preferred by them was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2002. That Security guards were disengaged by the corporation to avoid and further litigation. However the security guards were not the employees of the corporation who used to make the payment to the contractor who was also responsible to deduct the EPF etc. That services of the workman were not terminated by the corporation.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
Versus
The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Distt.
Karnal, Haryana
...Respondents In support of his case, workman appeard in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the stand as taken in the claim petition.
On the other hand, the respondent management has examined Dr. Rajesh Gulia, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand of the management along with the documents.
APPEARANCES :
For the workmen : Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Adv. I have heard Sh. Jagtar Kureel, counsel for the workman
and Sh.N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
For the Management : Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 29.5.2015
Central Government vide Notification No. L-22012/341/ 2006-IR(CM-II) Dated 15.3.2007, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the workman that workman is an employee of the corporation who engaged him w.e.f. 1.5.1992 and his services were terminated by the District Manager vide order dated 9.10.2000 without complying with the provisions of the Act and therefore the termination of his service is illegal. He has further submitted that the corporation who allege that the workman was an employee of the contractor did[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2685 Thus, it is held that workman has failed to prove that there was any relationship of emplyee and employer between the parties and being so, it cannot be said that services were terminated by the respondent management.
not examine the contractor as much as the corporation did not produce the record despite moving and application; and therefore, adverse inference be also taken against it to hold that workman is an employee of the corporation.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
In result, the reference is answered holding that workman is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1286.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ सीआई के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 1, ध्नबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 113/97) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-22012/102/1996-आईआर (सी-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अध्किारी
New Delhi, the19th June, 2015
S.O. 1286.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 113/97) of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19/06/2015.
[No. L-22012/102/1996-IR (C-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1)(D) (2A) OF I.D. ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 113 of 1997
Employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, Patna.
AND
Their workmen.
Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
The corporation is a statutory body and has its rules and regulations for appointing the persons in the corporation. Nothing has come on the file that any procedure was followed while giving the alleged appointment to the workman. Again no evidence whatsoever has been leg by the the workman to prove that it was the corporation who used to pay him salary. It was argued that the corporation used to pay him salary to the workmen but no simple assertions, it cannot be held that it was the corporation who was paying the salary to the workman without maintaining any record. Since it is not proved that any procedure was followed while appointing the workman and he was paid any pay at any point of time by the corporation, it cannot be said that he was an employee of the corporation as much as the respondent corporation has taken a definite stand that it has given contract for Security guards. Since the corporation denies the relationship with the workman, and therefore, the non- production of the record is of no consequence. it was for the workman to prove by leading cogent and convinving evidence on the file that the was ever employed by the corporation and there is only his bare statement in this respect which cannot be acted upon in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Here the learned counsel argued that it was the corpation who used to mark duty to the workman. Even if it is taken that duty was marked to the workman by officer of the corporation, the same do not make him an employee of the corporation as the security guards were given by the contractor and work was to be taken from them by deployin them at different places and simply marking of the duty by the corporation do not make the workman as its employee. The leaned counsel also carried me through the letter dated 9.10.2000 Mark A to submit that the workman was disengaged by the corporation which is sufficient to hold that he was an emplyee of the corporation. This letter was addressed to Assistant Manager, Karnal by the District Officer, Karnal intimating disengagement of the security guards and it was not addressed directly to the workman. It can only be said that intimation was given to the concerned office regarding the disengagement of the security guards and otherwise services of the security guards were not terminated vide the said letter. Otherwise also the said letter do not prove by any stretch of imagination that workman was ever demployed by the corporation in view of the reasons discussed above. Non-examination of the contractor by the FCI also do not advance the case of the workman and it was for hime to prove that he was an employee of the corporation which he has failed to prove.
For the Employers : None For the workman : Sri V. Kumar, Rep. State : Bihar Industry : Food Dated: 6.4.20152686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
By Order No. L-22012/102/1996-IR-(C-II), dated
20.5.1997, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
8. Considering the documents and evidence , as well
as facts of the cast, I hold that the action of the
management of F.C.I, Patna in not regularizing the service
of S/Sh Nagendra and Hari Kishore Roy casual employees,
is not legal and justified. Hence It is ordered to regularize
the workmen against the regular post from the date of
award, misusing the amount they have received from the
management in the meantime.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of F.C.I, Patna
in not regularizing the service of S/Sh Nagendra and
Hari Kishore Roy casual employees, is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief are the concerned
workman entitled ?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on
28.05.1997. After receipt of reference, both parties are
noticed, the Sponsoring Union files their written
statement on 24.07.1997. And the management files their
written statement-cum-rejoinder on 15.02.2000. Therefore
rejoinder and document filed by the parties. Two witness
examined by the management. Documents of workman
marked as Ext. W-1 to W-6.
3. The Short point to be decided in the case is whether
the workmen, who are working as casual employee, to be regularized as regular workmen, in the post, they are
working now.
4. The workmen representative submitted that as per
circular of management marked as Ext. W-2 the casual
employees who worked for 90 days prior to cut off date
02.05.86 they are to be regularized in their respective post.
5. Since both the workmen were not regularized, they
raised dispute before ALC Patna. Where the management
filed documents and admitted that the workman worked
for more than 90 days prior 02.05.1986. Therefore there is
no reason, to regularize them.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1287.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 1307/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/86/2006-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1287.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1307/2007)
of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Canara Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/86/2006-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
6. Moreover the management did not appear in the IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL case during argument. Both the witness of the management TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, submits that I have no personal knowledge regarding the
CHANDIGARH
case, and he also admitted that Ext. W-1 to W-4 are F.C.I
documents submits by MW-2 .
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No.1307/2007
7. MW-1 the management witness accepts that the
workmen were working from 1984, and I have been seeing
them. He also submits that I was simply watchman, I can
not say the contents of the affidavit filed from the
documents of the management it appears that the
workman worked continuously under the management,
for more than 240 days.
Registered on 24.5.2007
Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o New Vinod
Nagar, Near Hindu Public School, Mill Gate Road, Hisar,
district Hisar.
...Petitioner[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2687
Versus
The Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Red Square Market,
Hisar, District Hisar.
...Respondents Rajesh Kumar, workman filed his affidavit reiterating
the stand taken by him in the statement of claim.
Madan Lal has deposed in his affidavit that workman worked with the respondent bank from 29.9.2003 to 10/2005 at Extension Counter at Hisar. To that effect deposition has been made by Vakinder Singh and Mukesh.
APPEARANCES :
For the workman Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. On the other hand the bank has examined Sh. Anant Jalhona, who filed his affidavit reiterating the stand taken by the respondent bank.
AWARD
Passed on 27.4.15
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/86/ 2006-IR(B-II) Dated 12.2.2007, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Singh, Peon-cum-Coolie w.e.f. 19.10.2005 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was employed as Peon-cum-Coolie on daily wages with the respondent management on the opening of Extension Counter at PGSD, Senior Secondary School, Hisar on 29.9.2003. That Chief Manager had written a letter on 21.10.2004 asking for appointing the workman to the DGM. He was not paid wages w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and was given an assurance for payment of the wages and regularization of his services. He served a legal notice dated 14.10.2005 on the management and his services were orally terminated on 19.10.2005. That no notice was served on him or any retrenchment compensation was paid and as such the termination is illegal.
Respondent management filed written reply controverting the averments and at one place pleaded that workman was never appointed by the management nor he worked with it; and again it is pleaded that the workman worked intermittently during the period 29.9.2003 to 18.10.2005. That his services were utilized for miscellaneous work as per contingency need on daily wages of Rs. 50/- and he was paid for the day he worked. Other averments were controverted pleading that the Chief Manager was not competent to engage the workman and disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. Since the workman was a daily wager, he was not entitled to any retrenchment compensation or notice.
Parties were given opportunities to lead their evidence.
In support of its case, the workman Rajesh Kumar appeared in the witness box and examined Madan Lal, Mukesh and Vakinder Singh.
His cross-examination was deferred and he brought the original record and deposed that workman worked intermittently from 1.4.2005 to 18.10.2005 for which he did not take the payment.
I have heard Sh. Tara Chand Dhalwal, Counsel for the workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was argued by the learned counsel that the workman continuously worked with the respondent management from 29.9.2003 to 19.10.2005 and his services were illegally terminated without paying him any compensation and he be reinstated in service with back wages.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel.
As per Section 25F of the Act, a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year cannot be retrenched until he has been given one month's notice in writing or paid wages in lieu of such notice.
Section 25B defines 'continuous service' and inter alia provides that a workman shall be deemed to be continuous service for one year if he during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days.
According to the workman, his services were orally terminated on 19.10.2005 and therefore the period of 240 days is to be calculated preceding 19.10.2005 i.e. whether he actually worked for 240 days between 18.10.2004 to 19.10.2005. Certain vouchers Exhibit A1 to A10 has been placed on the record which pertains to the year 2003 and 2004 and the last voucher is of 1.10.2004. It was incumbent upon the workman to prove that he actually worked for 240 days prior to the termination of his service on 15.10.2005. A bare statement workman and the statement of the witnesses namely Madan Lal, Vekinder and Mukesh cannot be taken on its face value to hold the workman actually worked for 240 days. The best evidence available was the record of management. Sh. Anant Jalhona, a witness of management was examined on 1.4.2013 and he has categorically stated that workman worked intermittently and his cross-examination was deferred and on the next date of hearning i.e. 6.1.2014, be brought the original record including the attendance register and nothing has been pointed out that the workman continuously worked from 10/2004 to 10.2005 and the witness has again specifically2688 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
stated that the workman worked intermittently from 1.4.2005 to 18.10.2005. In view of the record broguth by the witness, it cannot be said that workman completed 240 days of service during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of alleged termination i.e. 19.10.2005. Being so, the compliance of Section 25F of the Act was not required and his case do not fall within the definition of 'retrenchment'.
Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case I.D. No. 1258/2006
There is no denial of the fact that respondent bank is a statutory body having its rules and regulations and nothing has come on the file that any procedure was followed while appointing the workman as Peon-cum-Coolie on daily wages. Therefore the workman can not claim his reinstatement on this ground also.
Registered on 14.3.2006
Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Lal workman, R/o Mohalla
Nankpura, Near Darjion Mohalla, Rampura Phul.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Management, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana (through its Zonal Manager).
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
There is a letter dated 15.1.2004 written by the Chief Manager, mentioning therein that the workman was engaged as coolie and asked for permanent alternative but this letter do not advance the case of the workman as it is admitted that workman worked with the bank for some time on daily wage basis and this letter relate to the year January, 2004 and it cannot be said that he worked with the back in the year 2005 continuously.
For the workman Sh. T.C. Sharma, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Being so, the reference is answered that the workman is not entitled to claim any relief against the respondent management. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
Passed on 11.5.2015
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1288.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1258/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/83/2005-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1288.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1258/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management in relation to the management of the Punjab National Bank and their Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/83/ 2005-IR(B-II) Dated 24.2.2006, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2- A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana in imposing the punishment of dismissal on Sh. Satish Kumar, Ex-Head Cashier, From service w.e.f. 22.1.2004 is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim to which written reply was filed.
The facts emerging are that the workman was posted as Head Cashier (C) at Branch Sailbrah of the respondent management in the year 2002-03, and it was found that he has received cash from the customers and made entries in their passbooks but did not deposit the same with the bank. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 19.7.2003 which reads as follows:—
CHARGE - SHEET
workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/ 2015.
[No. L-12012/83/2005-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer On 18.3.2003, at around 9.50 a.m., one customer named Sh. Prem Kumar S/o Sh. Faqir Chand, SF A/c No. 3689, visited the branch for withdrawal of amount from his[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2689 aforesaid SF A/c. He presented his passbook to Sh. S. K Garg, Officer, who found that the entries in the passbook did not match with those in the branch computer. On verification, it was observed that there was a credit entry of Rs. 45000/- dated 7.12.2002 in the passbook made in your own handwriting but no such entry was available in bank's records/computer. On enquiring the matter from you, you confessed having received cash from Sh. Prem Kumar, SF A/c No. 3689 on 7.12.2002 and made the entry in the passbook, without depositing the amount with the bank. On further enquiry, you confessed having made similar misappropriation in other accounts and gave a list consisting of 32 entries involving Rs. 520240/- wherein you pocketed money deposited by various customers but made entries in the passbooks as per detail given below:—
A/c No. Name S/Sh. Date of Amount Date of entry (Rs.) deposit made in in the passbook Bank
A/C
1 2 3 4 5
S/F-3086 Yadvinder Singh 31.12.2002 9500 21.3.2003
S/F-755 Jarnail Singh 22.1.2003 12000 21.3.2003
S/F-2939 Manjit Singh 21.2.2003 10000 21.3.2003
S/F-4094 Ramandeep Kaur 25.2.2003 2000 21.3.2003
S/F-2666 Jarnail Singh 9.8.2002 14000 21.3.2003
S/F-2666 Jarnail Singh 24.1.2003 6000 21.3.2003
S/F-2447 Roop Singh 15.1.2003 10000 21.3.2003
S/F-2050 Hardev Singh 21.2.2003 2600 21.3.2003
S/F-2050 Hardev Singh 10.3.2003 2500 1.03.2003
S/F-619 Krishan 14.3.2003 5000 21.3.2003
S/F-3073 Manjit Kaur 18.1.2003 5000 21.3.2003
S/F-751 Ajit Kaur 1.2.2003 11800 21.3.2003
S/F-2784 Mohinder Singh 17.2.2003 2500 21.3.2003
S/F-649 Darshan Singh 12.3.2003 12000 21.3.2003
S/F-3957 Sukhdeep Kaur 20.11.2002 11000 21.3.2003
S/F-2603 Darshan Singh 28.6.2002 26000 21.3.2003
S/F-2107 Sukhdev Singh 6.11.2002 45000 21.3.2003
S/F-2618 Baljit Kaur 29.11.2002 8340 21.3.2003
S/F-4142 Jeet Singh 15.11.2002 30000 21.3.2003
S/F-2569 Jaswinder Singh 16.11.2002 28000 21.3.2003
21.1.2003 50000 Rs. 78000/-
S/F-3665 Sukhdev Singh 7.1.2003 54000 7.1.2003
Rs. 34000/-
21.3.2003
Rs. 20000/- 1 2 3 4 5
S/F-870 Ajmer Singh 27.1.2003 6000 21.3.2003
S/F-4186 Gurdev Singh 20.12.2002 10000 21.3.2003
S/-F-2196 Paramjit Kaur 20.8.2002 22000 20.8.2002
Rs. 2000/-
21.3.2003
Rs. 20000/-
S/F-4030 Gurmit Kaur 27.9.2002 15000 21.3.2003
S/F-4060 Sukhminder Singh 10.3.2003 35000 10.3.2003
Rs. 20500/-
21.3.2003
Rs. 14500/-
S/F-1806 Ajaib Singh 26.8.2002 40000 21.3.2003
30.10.2002 30000 Rs. 70000/-
S/F-3689 Prem Kumar 7.12.2002 45000 21.3.2003
Prev. Diff. 2000 Rs. 47000/-
S/F-2399 Jaspal Singh 29.1.2003 3000 21.3.2003
RD-75 Sinder Singh 1.7.2002 10000 21.3.2003
RD-118 Hardev Singh 10.3.2003 1500 21.3.2003
The amount pocketed as above was deposited by you with the bank for credit to respective accounts on 21.3.2003 under your own signatures. Thus, you pocketed Rs. 5,20,240/- for the period mentioned above.
The workman submitted reply and after considering the same as not satisfactory, an Inquiry Office was appointed. Due to administrative reasons the Inquiry officer was changed and the inquiry was entrusted to another officer before whom the workman admitted the charges and confessed that he has embezzled the amount. However, evidence was also led before the Inquiry Officer who after considering the confession of the workman and the evidence led before him submitted a report dated 31.10.2003 holding that charges are proved against the workman.
On the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to him along with the Inquiry report to which he submitted reply and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service w.e.f. 22.1.2004. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.
Now, according to the workman, the inquiry was not conducted as per procedure and the Inquiry Officer was changed during the proceedings which is unwarranted by law. That the Inquiry Officer did not base his report on any evidence and no witness was examined before him. That2690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the inquiry report is biased and is liable to be set aside and accordingly the punishment order is not also sustainable.
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1289.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 776/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/55/2001 - IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
On the other hand the management has taken the stand in his written statement that the inquiry was held as per procedure. Though the workman admitted the charges, but still the evidence was led before the Inquiry Officer who based his report not only on the confession of the workman but also on the basis of the evidence produced. The workman was given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and lead his defence evidence. That there is no defect in the Inquiry proceedings and the punishment order based on the inquiry report is legal and valid.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, the inquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 28.5.2014.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH.
I have heard Sh. Tek Chand Sharma, Counsel for the workman and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management. Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 776/2005
It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman that workman has deposited the amounts in the bank and as such no loss has been caused either to the bank or to the account-holders and therefore the penalty of dismissal from service is harsh and a lenint view be taken.
Registered on 5.0.2005
Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushal son of Sh. Madan Lal, Ex-Clerk-cum-Typist, Bank of India, Sector 17C, Chandigarh, C/o Pt. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Labour Law Advisor, K.No. 3007, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, N.W. Zone, SCO
181-182, Sector 17C, Chandigarh.
2. Bank of India, Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh,
through its Chief Manager.
... Respondents
APPEARANCES
Suffice it to say that banks deals with the public money and its officers are required to discharge their functions with utmost diligence and honesty. The workman in the present case embezzled the amount of not only one customer but of several customers from the year 2002 to 2003. If he deposited the amount on detection of the embezzlement, the same cannot exonerate him of the misconduct committed by him. since he is guilty of misappropriating the amount of account-holders who deposit the amount with him in good faith, no other view can be taken except the one taken by the punishing authority and the punishment order do not call for any interference by using the powers under Section 11 of the Act.
For the workman Sh. Aditya Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the Management Sh. Ranjan Loha, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 27.5.2015
In result, it is held that the action of the management in imposing the penalty of punishment of dismissal on the workman is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1289.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 776/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल - 12012/55/2001-आई आर (बी-I)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/55/ 2001-IR(B-II) Dated 10/16.07.2001, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-Section (1) Caluse (d) and Sub- Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Chandigarh in imposing the punishment of Compulsory Retirement on Sh. Suresh Chand Kaushal S/o Sh. Madan Lal, wef 15.01.2000 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim to which written reply was filed.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2691The facts emerging are that workman was posted as Clerk-cum-Typist with the respondent Management. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 1.11.1995 for unauthorized absence; and again charge-sheeted on 14.11.1998 for unauthorized absence and separate penalty was imposed by passing separate order. He was again served the charge-sheet 14.10.1999 which is as follow:—
rightly acted on the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed the impugned order which is legal ande valid.
I have heard Sh. Aditya Kumar Sharma, counsel for the workman and Sh. Rajan Lohan, counsel for the management and perused the inquiry proceedings.
CHARGE-SHEET
During the course of your position and working at the Bank's Chandigarh Branch, you are alleged to have committed following acts of misconduct:—
"You have been remaining absent from your duties since 1.11.1998 without any intimation to the Competent Authority. The period of your aforesaid continous absence has exceeded 30 days."
2. Prior to this, you remained absent from your duties from 24.8.1998 to 25.9.01998 without any intimation, for which disciplinary action for gross misconduct was initiated against you by issuing charge-sheet Ref No. CHD: CM: 961 dated 14.11.1998. After holding departmental enquiry in accordance with the prescribed procedure and after completing other requirments, you were awarded punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Telex Operator vide Punishment Order Ref. No. CHD:CM:1243 dated 10.2.1999. However, it is observed that even after issuance of aforesaid punishment order, you did not report for duties and have been remaining unauthorizealy absent without any intimation.
He filed reply. Feeling not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The workman appeared before him on 22.11.1999 and admitted the charges in the presence of his defence representative and on an admission, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report of the same date holding that charges are proved against the workman.
One the basis of the Inquiry report, he was compulsorily
retired on 15.1.2000.
Though the workman has challenged the proceedings in all the inquiries, but as per reference the court is to see whether the action of the management in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 15.1.2000 is just and legal and therefore the other inquires relating to the order 1995 and 1996 are of no consequence.
The only ground taken by the workman is that during the course of inquiry he was coerced to sign the documents on the pretext that workman would be given voluntary retirement but he was compulsory retired and this act of the management is illegal and he is entitled to get voluntary retirement as per rules of the bank.
The management has denied the allegations and pleaded that the workman himself made the statement voluntarily and without any pressure and that too in the presence of his defence representative and the disciplinary authority As per the proceedings dated 22.11.1999, the workman appeared before the Inquiry Officer and adimtted the charges and at that time his defence representative was also present. Workman has pleased that his signatures were taken on the pretext of giving him voluntary retirement but there is noting on the file that his signatures were obtained by any misrepresentation, and since the workman admits his signatures on the proceedings, it cannot be said in the absence of any evidence on the file that his signatures were obtained on a false pretext for giving him voluntary retirement. On the basis of his admission, the Inquiry Officer submitted and inquiry report which is of the same date i.e. 22.11.1999. The punishment is based on this inquiry report which in turn is based on the admission of the workman and therefore is cannot be said that the inquiry conducted in the present case is illegal.
The learned counsel for the workman also raised arguments regarding the quantum of penalty imposed and being so, there is no use of further adjourn the proceedings for hearing the parties regarding the penalty imposed. It was argued by the learned counsel that workman simply seeks voluntary retirement as compulsory retirement' is stigmatic and therefore the penalty imposed accordingly be amended. Suffice it to say that the workman was charge- sheeted for remaining absent in the year 1995 and again for his absence in the year 1998 and even after the awarding of punishment vide order dated 10.2.1999, he did not join the duty. Thus he remained willfully absent from his duty. In the circumstances, no other view can be taken for awarding the punishment then taken by the disciplinary authority and the punishment order do not call for any interference and the same is upheld.
In result the reference is answered accordingly holding that the workman in not entitled to any relief. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1290.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम, 1947 1947 का 14 की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सटल बक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय-2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 1563/2008) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल-12011/75/2008-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी2692 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1290.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1563/2008) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12011/75/2008-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer workman and what relief he is entitled to and from which date?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim to which the management filed reply.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 1563/2008
Registered on 17.10.2008
Sh Sukhdev Singh, CTO, Central Bank of India, Moga
Branch, Moga, Resident of House No. 610, Bassi
Gobindgarh, Moga.
...Petitioner The facts emerging are that workman Sh. Sukhdev Singh was posted as C.T.O. with the management at Moga on 6.5.2002. On that day he was working on Cash Payment seat. He received two vouchers/pay-in-slips for Rs. 1500/- each of Sh. B.S. Sidhu, Branch Manager and Account No. 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. According to the management he entered the voucher of Sh. B.S. Sidhu in the cash receipt register whereas, of Gulab Singh was not entered. However he released both the pay-in-slips on that day in token of having received the cash. Both these vouchers were mentioned in the supplementary/cash book, a difference of Rs. 1500/- was found in the Cash Book. However the workman destroyed both the vouchers and pocketed this amount of Rs. 1500/- of Gulab Singh. When the Cash Book was tallied on 8.5.2002. He prepared fresh voucher of Sh. B.S. Sidhu and after making alterations in the cash book and scroll, he has shown the deposit of Rs. 1500/- and thus tampered the bank record.
Versus
Central Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Zonal
Office, SCO 58-59, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh.
...Respondents The workman was charge-sheeted and regular inquiry was conducted. Finding him guilty, the competent authority, awarded him punishment by bringing him down to two stages in the scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect.
APPEARANCES :
For the Workman Sh. D.C. Mittal, Adv.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
AWARD
Now according to the workman the inquiry conducted was not fair and proper and it was Mr. B.S. Sidhu who did not deposit Rs. 1500/- on 6.5.2002. Though the mistake came to notice in the year 2002, but inquiry proceedings were started only in the year 2004 which itself shows that the action of the management is mala fide. That the appeal preferred by him was dismissed. That both the order by the punishing authority and Appellate Authority are illegal and he did not commit any misconduct.
Passed on14.11.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12011/75/
2008-IR(B-II) Dated 22.9.2008, by exercising its powers under
Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank
of India, in awarding punishment of Sh. Sukhdev Singh,
C.T.O. as brought down to two stages in the scale of
pay for three years with cumulative effect is in
proportionate to the misconduct committed by the On the other hand the management has pleaded that workman has embeszzled Rs. 1500/- and even tampered with the bank record and these facts were proved by conducting a regular inquiry which was joined by the workman who was given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as well as to lead evidence. There was no defect in the conduct of the inquiry and the punishing authority has rightly awarded the punishment after going through the entire proceedings of the case which is legal and valid. Similarly the order passed by the Appellate Authority is also valid.
I have heard Sh. D.C. Mittal, counsel for the workman
and Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2693The following charge-sheet was served on the
workman:—
CHARGE-SHEET
CHARGES—
1. While working on cash receipt/payment seat on dated 6.5.2002 Sh. Sukhdev Singh received two vouchers/pay in slips for Rs. 1500/- each, on (dully scrolled) in respect of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu staff and other (which was unscrolled) in respect of HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. While the voucher/pay in slips in respect of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu was entered in his cash receipt register where as he did not enter the other voucher/pay in slip for Rs. 1500/- related to HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh in his cash receipt for the day. Both of the pay in slips were released by him on that day. i.e. 6.5.2002, as a token of having received the cash. Since both these vouchers were written in respective supplementary/cash book, a different for Rs.1500/- in cash book in its cash received column was crept in. Subsequently, both these vouchers were destroyed.
2. Sh. Sukhdev Singh on 8.5.2002, prepared a fresh pay in slip/voucher for Rs. 1500/- in dated 6.5.2002 of HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh and sent it to scroll clerk for scroll which was scrolled at Sr. No.43 of cash scroll book for dated 8.5.2002. He also entered this voucher in his cash receipt for dated 8.5.2002 at Sr. No. 43. To treat this voucher for dated 6.5.2002, he got marked scroll No. 28 on this voucher/pay in slip scroll No. 28 for dated 6.5.2002 was of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu Staff.
Thereafter entry made in cash scroll book and cash receipt register dated 6.5.2002 of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu was altered to HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. Similarly entry made on 8.5.2002 in cash scroll book and cash receipt register of HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh for Rs.1500/- was altered by him to VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu and he prepared and released a fresh voucher/pay in slip for Rs. 1500/- for VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu.
Thus Sh.Sukdev Singh CTO/Clerk Pocketed Rs. 1500/- 6.5.2002 which was deposited in the HSS A/C 17208 of Sh. Gulab Singh. When the matter came into light on 8.5.2002 while tallying the cash book he destroyed the bank's vouchers himself tempered the bank record and also arranged to temper the bank record to make the entry dated 6.5.2002 of VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu to HSS A/C 17208 of Gulab Singh. He also deposited Rs. 1500/- on 8.5.2002 in VIP A/C Sh. B.S. Sidhu Staff which was pocketed by him on 6.5.2002.
The above acts of Sh. Sukhdev Singh constitute Gross- Misconduct under para 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.1.2002. Sh. K.L. Batra Sr. Manager B.O S.T. Ludhiana will hold departmental inquiry against him and the date, time and place of inquiry will be communicated to him by the inquiry officer. Sh. Sukhdev Singh CTO/Clerk will be permitted to be defended by a representative of a Registered Trade Union of the bank employees of which he is a member. At inquiry he should keep ready with him, all oral and documentary evidence which he may tender or produce on his behalf and he will be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who may be produced by the management during the inquiry proceedings.
He should inform the inquiry officer, the name of his representative and the name of the witnesses he intends to produce at the inquiry on his behalf. He is also informed that if he fails to present himself at the inquiry on the appointed date or on the adjourned date, the inquiry will be held ex parte and my findings of the inquiry officer will be conclusive and binding upon him.
It may be added here that the reference in the present case is whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the misconduct and to what relief he is entitled.
A lengthy argument was advanced by Mr. N.K. Zakhmi, Learned Counsel for the management to show that the inquiry conducted in the case is fair and proper. But in view of the terms of the reference, this Tribunal is not to go into the said question and it is simply to see whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to alleged misconduct.
It was contended by learned counsel for the management that bank employees are required to take all steps to protect in interest of the bank and of its customers and since the workman in the present case pocketed Rs. 1500/-, the same amounts to gross misconduct and the punishing authority by taking a lenient view has rightly awarded the punishment in question.
I have considered the contention of the Learned Counsel.
There is hardly any dispute that a bank officer is required to exercise high standards of honesty and integrity and is required to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the bank and of the customers. Even if the case of the management is taken as such that the workman did not account Rs. 1500/- which he received on 6.5.2002, whether the same is sufficient to award the punishment in question. There is nothing on the file or came in the inquiry proceedings that the workman used the money for his own purpose at any stage or had any criminal intention to misappropriate the same by not mentioning the pay-in- slips in the required registers. It is the case of the bank itself that both the pay-in-slips of s. 1500/- each of Sh. B.S. Sidhu, Branch Manager and of Sh. Gulab Singh were released by the workman after stamping the same and these were even entered in the supplementary cash book and accordingly a discrepancy was found when the cash book was tallied on 8.5.2002. Had the workman has any criminal intention to misappropriate the sum of Rs. 1500/-, he would2694 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.
Case No. I.D. No. 431/2005
Registered on 19.8.2005
Sh. Moti Lal Mandiya, S/o Sampat Ram Mandiya, R/o
Mulodi, Bhangarka (PO), Tehsil Narnaul, Mahendergarh.
...Petitioner
Versus
not have released the pay-in-slips and even not bothered to enter the same in the supplementary cash book. It does not appeal to mind that a person working on the cash receipt register would go for embezzling a petty sum of Rs. 1500/- only. Though it was argued that he pocketed money on 6.5.2002 and deposited the same on 8.5.2002 and the same amounts to gross misconduct, but this argument is not sustainable for the obvious reason that such an officer working on the cash receipt register would not pocket such a small amount and that too after issuing the receipts having received the same and also knowing fully well that such an act is to be discovered at the end of they day. A cash book is to be tallied in routine daily. It seems that the voucher was not entered in the relevant registers inadvertently or due to some negligence; and no mala fide can be attributed to him if in order to correct the mistake, some cuttings or additions were made in the record. It cannot be said that he tempered with the bank record or destroyed any valuable document.
Punjab National Bank through its Zonal Manager, Sector
17, Chandigarh.
Punjab National Bank through its Regional Manager,
Rohtak, Haryana.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES
For the Workman Sh. Arun Batra, Adv.
For the Management Ex parte.
AWARD
Passed on 4.11.2014.
The punishment awarded is of bringing down the workman to two stages in the scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect; and the punishment, as stated above, is inflicted only on account of the mistake committed by the workman inadvertently or negligently; and therefore the same cannot be held to be proportionate to the alleged misconduct committed by the workman and is set aside and workman is entitled to all the arrears of pay which were withheld on account of the passing of the impugned order dated 18.5.2005. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1291.—औद्योगिक विवाद अध्निियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंध्तत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध् में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अध्किरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (431/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/230/97-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अध्किारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1291.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 431/2015) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/230/97-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/ 230/97-IR(B-II) Dated 13.1.1998, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub- section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Sh. Moti Lal Mandiya, Clerk/Cashier from the service of the bank vide order dated 15.1.96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"
The fact in brief are that the workman was working as Clerk/Cashier in New Bank of India at Kamania which was later on amalgamated with Punjab National Bank on 4.9.1993. While working in New Bank of India, it is alleged, he committed acts of gross-misconduct and he was served with a charge-sheet dated 28.7.1993. After considering his reply, regular inquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted a report finding the workman guilty. Acting on the report of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued to the workman along with the copy of the report and consequently his services were terminated vide order dated 15.1.1996. The appeal preferred by the workman was also dismissed.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2695According to the workman, the charge-sheet served on him was not legal and valid as the documents relied upon was never supplied to him and he was not allowed to inspect the record. That the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in a haste manner without supplying him list of witnesses and list of documents and that too without following the rules for conducting the inquiry. That he was not given an opportunity to defend himself. Since the inquiry is not legal and valid, the punishment passed on its basis is also illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all the benefits.
Respondent management filed written reply pleading that the inquiry conducted is legal and valid and the punishment order cannot be set aside.
Initially the bank appeared and submitted written statement but later on none appeared on behalf of the bank and registered notice was again sent on 30.9.2013 but again none appeared on behalf of bank and ex parte proceedings were taken against it vide order dated 19.11.2013.
In support of its case the workman appeared in the
witness box and filed his affidavit.
I have heard Sh. Arun Batra, counsel for the workman.
The following charge-sheet dated 28.7.1993 was served
on the workman:—
1. Sh. Amar Singh, on 1.10.90 deposited Rs. 2000/- in Bank for credit in his saving bank account 145. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duty as Cashier. He did not deposit the amount in the bank. He kept the money with himself for his own use. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book in credit side and initiated it. On 5.10.90 Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited the amount of Rs. 2000/- in the saving bank account of Sh. Amar Singh. He misappropriated the bank's money for 4 days, for his own benefit.
On 3.11.90, Sh. Amar Singh deposited Rs. 2000 for credit in his saving bank account 145. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the amount while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book in credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money for his own use.
On 17.11.90, Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 2000/- in the bank for credit in saving bank account No. 145 of Sh. Amar Singh. He also signed the deposit slip. He misappropriated the bank's money for 14 days. Sh. M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
2. On 4.8.90, Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria deposited Rs. 3000/- for credit in his S.B. account 289. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 3000 in the credit side of the pass book and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the Bank and kept the money with himself for his won use. On 2.2.91 Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria deposited Rs. 75.00 for credit in his S.B. Account 289. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the amount while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 75/- in the pass book on credit side and initiated it. Again on 2.2.91 he deposited Rs. 3075/- in the bank instead of Rs. 75/- received from Sh. Chhaju Ram Nahria. In this way Sh. M.L. Mandiya misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 3000/- for about six months. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of the bank in the eyes of general public.
3. On 1.8.89 Sh. Nathu Ram deposited Rs. 3800/- in his S.B. Account No. 477. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 3800/- in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. Sh. Mandiya did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 3.8.89 Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 3800/- in the saving bank account of Sh. Nathu Ram. Sh. Mandiya has misappropriated the bank's money for two days for his own use. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
4. On 9.4.90, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, deposited Rs. 3100/- in his SB account 511. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 3100/- in the pass book in the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 21.5.90 Sh. M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 3100/- in the bank for credit of saving bank account No. 511/- of Sh. Hari Singh Yadav by a deposit slip signed by him. He misappropriated the bank's money for about 42 days.
On 22/24.6.91 Sh. Hari Ram Yadav deposited Rs. 7000/- for credit in a saving bank account 511. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 7000/- in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He kept the money with himself for his own use and he did not deposit it in the bank. On 27.6.91, Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 7000/- for credit in the account of Sh. Har Ram Singh Yadav SB Account No. 511. He misappropriated the bank's money for about 3 to 5 days for his own benefit.
On 30.4.92, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav deposited Rs. 4500/- for credit in his SB account No. 511, Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 4500/- in the pass book on the credit side. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself.
On 8.6.92, Sh. Hari Ram Yadav, again visited the bank and requested Sh. Mandiya a payment of Rs. 24000/- from2696 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] his SB account 511. Sh. Mandiya got his signature on the blank withdrawal form. He made the payment of Rs. 24000/- to him. He also entered the transaction of Rs. 24000/- in the pass book on the debit side. Sh. Mandiya filled the withdrawal form with Rs. 19500/- and entered the transaction in the bank books and ledger. In this way he misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 4500/- for about one month six days for his own benefit. Sh. Mandiya acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
5. On 26.2.90, Smt. Anarli Devi deposited Rs. 1800/- in her saving bank account 662. Sh. Mandiya received the money while working as a Cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book in credit side. He kept the money with himself for his own use. On 3.3.90 Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 1800/- in the bank for credit in the SB account 662 of Smt. Anarli Devi. He misappropriated the bank's money for five days.
On 28.8.92, Smt. Anarli Devi deposited Rs. 500/- in her saving bank account 662. Sh. Mandiya received the money and kept with himself for his own use. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book in the credit side and also initiated it. On 15.9.92 Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 500/- in the bank to the credit of SB account 662 of Smt. Anarli Devi. He signed the deposit slip also. He misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 500/- for 15 days for his own benefit.
On 8.9.92 Smt. Anarli Devi, deposited Rs.1500/- in her SB account 662. Sh. M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. He entered the transaction of Rs. 1500/- in the pass book of Smt. Anarli Devi on credit side and also initiated it. On 15.9.92 Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 1500/- in the bank for credit in SB account 662 of Smt. Anarli Devi. He misappropriated the bank's money for 7 days. These acts of Sh. Mandiya are in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank and have lowered the image of the bank in the yes of general public.
6. On 23.5.91, Smt. Santosh deposited Rs. 600/- in her SB account No. 711. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit Rs. 600/- in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 13.7.92. Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 600/- in the SB account 711 of Smt. Santosh. He also signed the deposit-slip. Sh. Mandiya misappropriated the bank's money for about one year, one month and twenty days. This act of Sh. M.L. Mandiya is in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and has also lowered the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
7. On 2.7.91, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 2000/- in the bank for credit in her SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a cashier in the branch. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the money in the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. On 6.7.91 he deposited Rs. 2000/- in the SB account of Smt. Champa Devi by signing the deposit slip. He misappropriated the bank's money for four days.
On 7.3.92, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 2200/- in her SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya received the money and entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the money in the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. He deposited Rs. 2200/- on 2.5.92 in the account of Smt. Champa Devi. He misappropriated with bank's money for about one month 25 days.
On 26.11.92, Smt. Champa Devi deposited Rs. 4000/- in her SB account 764. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a cashier in the branch. He entered the transaction in the pass book and also initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 4000/- in the bank for credit in SB account no. 764 of Smt. Champa Devi. He misappropriated the bank's money for nine days. Sh. M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
8. 3.1.92 Smt. Bhagwani w/o Nand Ram deposited Rs. 1000/- in her SB account No. 1009. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept with himself for his own use. On 15.5.92 Smt. Bhagwani visited the bank and requested for the payment of Rs. 500/- from her account. Sh. Mandiya paid Rs. 500/- from his own pocket to Smt. Bhagwani Devi and entered the transaction in the pass book on the debit side and initiated it. He also deposited Rs. 500/- on 15.5.92 in the bank for credit in SB account 1009. In this way he misappropriated Rs. 1000/- being the bank's money for about four months 12 days. By this act, Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of the bank in the eyes of general public.
9. On 26.11.92, Sh. Sube Singh deposited Rs. 7300/- for credit in his SB account 1145. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book in the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 30.11.92, Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 7300/- in the account of Sh. Sube Singh, SB No. 1145. He misappropriated the bank's money for 4 days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the bank's interest besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
10. On 7.11.91, Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposited Rs. 3000/- in his SB account 426. Sh. Mandiya received the money[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2697 while performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself. On 13.1.92 Sh. Ravinder Kumar visited the bank and demanded a payment of Rs. 4500/- from his account. Sh. Mandiya got the blank withdrawal form signed from him and paid Rs. 4500/-. He entered the transaction of Rs. 4500/- in the pass book and initiated it. Later on the same date Sh. Mandiya filled the blank withdrawal form with Rs. 1500/- and debited the SB account 426. In this way, he misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 3000/- for about two months six days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
11. On 29.11.92, Sh. Mandiya had himself disclosed to Sh. N.K. Sharma, Branch Manager regarding an amount of Rs. 600/-, he kept with himself. He informed that this money belonged to Smt. Murti Devi SB account No. 570, which she had deposited in the bank to the credit in her SB account. On being persuaded by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Branch Manager, Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 600/- in the bank for credit in SB account 577 of Smt. Murti Devi. The deposit slip was filled by him. Sh. M.L. Mandiya has misappropriated the bank's money. He acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
12. On 2.12.91, Sh. Vijay Pal, S/o Jagmal deposited Rs. 950/- in the bank for credit in his SB account No. 564. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 950/ - in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. Sh. Mandiya did not deposited the amount in bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 6.12.91, Sh. Vijay Pal visited the branch and requested for a payment of Rs. 500/- from his SB account 564. Sh. Mandiya got the withdrawal form of Rs. 500/- signed from Sh. Vijay Pal. He did not debit the SB account 564 and paid Rs. 500/- from his own pocket. He entered the transaction in the pass book on debit side and initiated it. On 13.4.92 Sh. Vijay Pal again visited the bank and requested for a payment of Rs. 500/- from his SB account No. 564. Sh. Mandiya got the blank withdrawal form signed from him and paid him Rs. 500/-. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on debit side and initiated it. Later on the same date, he filled the withdrawal form with Rs. 50/- and debited the SB account 564. In this way he misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 500/- for four days and Rs. 450/- for about 4 months 12 days for his own use.
On 15.5.92, Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 500/- in the bank for credit in his SB account No. 564. Sh Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 27.7.92 Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 500/- for credit in his SB account 564. Sh. Mandiya received the ammount while performing his duties as a cashier and entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 30.11.92 Sh. Vijay Pal deposited Rs. 350/- in the bank for credit in his SB account No. 564. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 350/- in the pass book on the credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. On 26.12.92 Sh. Mandiya deposited Rs. 1350/- in the bank for credit in SB account 564 of Sh. Vijay Pal by filling the deposit slip himself. In this way Sh. Mandiya has misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. Rs. 500/- for about 7 months 11 days other Rs. 500/- for about five months and Rs. 350/- for about 26 days. Sh. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
13. On 9.8.91, Smt. Santosh Devi deposited Rs. 2200/- in the bank for credit in the SB account No. 838. Sh. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties as a cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on credit side and initiated it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. On 28.11.91 Smt. Santosh Devi visited the branch for a payment of Rs. 5000/- from her SB account No. 838. Sh. Mandiya got the blank withdrawal signed from Smt. Santosh Devi. He paid Rs. 5000/- to her and entered the transaction in her pass book on debit side and initiated it. On the same date he filled the withdrawal from with Rs. 2800/- and debited her SB account No. 838. In this way he misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 2200/- for about three months 20 days for his own use.
On 9.1.92 Smt. Santosh Devi deposited Rs. 2000/- in the bank for credit in the SB account No. 838. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the cash while performing his duties has a cashier; he entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the amount in the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. On 17-2-1992, Smt. Santosh Devi visited the bank and requested for a payment of Rs. 2000 from her SB account No. 838. Sh. M.L. Mandiya got the withdrawal form signed from her and paid her Rs. 2000/-. He also entered the Transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the debit side and initialed it. Shri M.L. Mandiya did not debit her SB account No. 838 and paid the amount from his own pocket. In this way, Shri M.L. Mandiya misappropriated the banks money for about one month eight day for his own use. He acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
14. On 7-12-92, Smt. Krishana Devi deposit Rs. 350/- for credit in her SB account No. 1025. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties has a2698 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 350/- in pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept it himself for his own use. He had defrauded the bank with by Rs. 350/- he has act in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank the eyes of general public.
15. On 02/01/92, Shri Som Dutt, S/o Shri Phool Chand deposited Rs. 100/- in the bank as a installment towards his loan account RT 70. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept with himself for his own use. He has defrauded the bank with Rs. 100/-. This act of Shri M.L. Mandiya in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank, besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
16. On 20-06-92, Shri Sanwal Ram deposited Rs. 2000/- in the bank as a installment towards his loan account Camel Cart 31. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. Shri M.L. Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 2000/-. He has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
17. Shri Tara Chand deposited Rs. 500/- in the month of October towards installment in his pronote account. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 500/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. He deposited Rs. 500 on 29-12-92, by filling the deposit slip himself. Shri M.L. Mandiya has misappropriated the bank money for about 3 months. He has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
18. On 15-10-92, Shri Rajesh deposited Rs. 50/- for credit in his JD account 7/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept the money with himself for his own use. Mr. M.L. Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 50/-. He has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
19. On 15-10-92, Shri Mukesh deposited Rs. 50/- for credit in his JD account 8/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 50/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept it with himself for his own use. Shri M.L. Mandiya has defrauded the bank with Rs. 50/-. By this act, Shri M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
20. On 15-10-92, Shri Rakesh deposited Rs. 50/- for credit in his JD account 9/36. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money, while performing his duties as a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 50/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He kept the money with himself and did not deposit the money with the Bank. He has defrauded the bank with Rs. 50/-. By this act, Shri M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank in the eyes of general public.
21. Shri Sita Ram deposited Rs. 2000/- for his SB account No. 23 during the month of October, 92. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties has a Cashier. He entered the transaction of Rs. 2000/- in the pass book on the credit side and initialed it. He did not deposit the money with the bank and kept it himself for his own use. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Sita Ram during the 1st week of Jan. 1993 visited the bank along with the pass book of account No. 23 to inquire the balance in the account. Sh. M.L. Mandiya took the pass book with plea to complete it and tore it away. He issued a new pass book to Smt. Kamla Devi mentioning all the transactions from the ledger since the inception of account. He even did to got the pass book signed from the manager. He also returned Rs. 2000/ - to Sh. Sita Ram at his home during the last week of Jan. 1993. He also misappropriated the bank's money of Rs. 2000/- for about 3 months. Shri M.L. Mandiya has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank the eyes of general public. He has also tempered/damage the property of the bank.
22. On 24-11-1992, Sh. Sant Lal deposited Rs. 600/- in the SB account 1097. Shri M.L. Mandiya received the money while performing his duties has a Cashier. He did not deposit the amount and kept the money with himself for his own use. Branch Manager N.K. Sharma received the complaint while checking all the accounts and reported the matter to LBO on 30-04-93. After persuation, Shri M.L. Mandiya deposited Rs. 600/- in the SB account 1097 on 11-05-93. He has misappropriated the money for about 5 months and 17 days. He has acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of bank besides lowering the image of bank the eyes of general public.
It shows that the workman was using the bank money and sometimes he used to deposit the same after several days. It is not denied that the workman joined the inquiry proceedings and there is nothing on the file that the workman ever agitated having not received the documents before the Inquiry Officer at any stage. Now it is too late to say that he did not receive the documents or the list of witneses. There is no denial of the fact that a proper charge-sheet was served to him to which he submitted reply and finding the same as not satisfactory, a regular inquiry was ordered. During the inquiry the management produced six witnesses besides[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2699 New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1292.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1025/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal - cum - Labour Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/80/99-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
tendering 163 documents. The workman was given opportunity to lead its defence evidence but he did not examine any witness and perusal of the inquiry report shows that he even did not challenge the testimony of the witnesses examined by the management. Considering the evidence, the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that charges against the workman are proved. The learned counsel for the workman did not point out any rules and regulations which were violated while conducting the inquiry. Thus a proper charge sheet was served on the workman and the witnesses were examined by the management in his presence and he was given an opportunity to lead his defence evidence and in the cirumstances, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the conduct of the inquiry and the same is held to be fair and proper.
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case I.D. No. 1025/2005
Registered on 17.9.2005
Sh. Uttam Pal, S/o Sh. D.S. Chauhan, R/o Kirti Nagar, Prem Gali Begu Road, Sirsa.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, Sirsa.
...Respondents
Appearances :
For the workman Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Adv.
AWARD
It was argued by the learned counsel for workman that no loss of money has occurred to the bank as the workman used to deposit the money later on, and, in the circumstances, the punishment awarded is not proper. Suffice it to say that the workan was charge sheeted under 22 heads showing that he was dealing with the money of the custmoers as well as of the bank as per his own will and used to make the entries in the relevant record at his convenience. The bank officers are required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity while dealing with the money of the depositors and in the present case the workman is not guilty of keeping the money of depositors with him once or twice but he was found doing so in 22 cases and even in few cases he misappropriated the amount and the conduct of the workman shows that it was not safe for the bank to keep him in service to safeguard the interest of the customers as well as of the bank. In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the punishment inflicted on the workman. In result, considering the entire facts of the case, it is held that the action of the management in dismissing the workman is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the copy be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1292.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 1025/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/80/99-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी Passed on 6-11-2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/80/ 99-IR(B-II) Dated 25.8.1999, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-
"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Chandi Chowk Sirsa Branch of Punjab National Bank and Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Hisar in terminating the services of Sh. Uttam Pal S/o Sh. D.S. Chauhan w.e.f. 15.5.97 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as Peon on 1.12.1994 by the respondent management at Sirsa and his last drawn wages were2700 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Rs.1400/- per month. His services were illegally terminated on 15.5.1997 without service of any notice. It is also pleaded that management used to pay him the salary under the name of some other person. That the Manager of the Sirsa Branch wrote a letter to the Regional Manager on 3.6.1997 regarding the discontinuance of his services showing that the workman worked with the management. Since his termination is in violation of the provisions of the Act, he is entitled to be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply controverting the averments and denied that the workman was ever employed by it. That he did not work for the management at any stage nor he was paid any salary.
Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.
In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh. L.D. Batra who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent management as find mentioned in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was vehemently argued by the AR of the workman that workman was employed by the bank as Peon on 1.12.1994 and his services were terminated illegally on 15.5.1997 and since the bank has not produced the record including the payment vouchers, an inference be drawn that he actually worked for the respondent management continuously from 1.12.1994 to 15.5.1997.
I have considered the contentions.
imagination that he actually served the bank and being so, it cannot be said that his services were terminated by the respondent.
In result, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is answered accordingly. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1293.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय न॰ 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 1026/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/73/99-आई आर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1026/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/73/99-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer
Case I.D. No. 1026/2005
Registered on 17.9.2005
Sh. Vikas Sethi, C/o Smt. Asha Sethi, Arya Girls High School, Arya Samaj Road, Sirsa (Haryana).
...Petitioner
Versus
The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Delhi Road, Hisar.
...Respondents
APPEARANCES :
It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Peon on 1.12.1994 and therefore, it was for the workman to prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. But no evidence has come on the file to show that he was ever appointed by the respondent management as alleged by the workman. Workman himself has stated that no appointment letter was issued to him. No record has come on the file that the workman was ever appointed as per Rules and Regulations governing the respondent management. Again nothing has come on the file to establish that the workman has ever received any salary from the management. Though the bank has not produced the record relating to payment of wages from the year 1994 to 1997 but no adverse inference can be taken against it to the effect that workman was actually an employee of the bank and he has received the salary from it. However the bank has placed on record the photocopies of the attendance registers which are on the file and the name of the workman do not find therein for the period in question. Since there is no cogent evidence that workman was ever appointed and that too as per Rules and Regulations of the bank, it cannot be said by any stretch of For the Workman Sh. R.K. Singh, A.R.
For the Management Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2701AWARD
Passed on 6.11.2014
Central Government vide Notification No. L-12012/73/ 99 IR(B-II) dated 18.6.1999, by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the Branch Manager, Chandi Chowk Sirsa Branch of Punjab National Bank and Regional Manager, Regional Office, Punjab National Bank, Hissar in terminating the services of Sh. Vikas Sethi w.e.f. 15.5.97 is just and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
In response to the notice, the workman appeared and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was appointed as Peon on 17.12.1993 by the respondent management at Sirsa and his last drawn wages were Rs.1400/- per month. His services were illegally terminated on 15.5.1997 without service of any notice. It is also pleaded that management used to pay him the salary under the name of some other person. That the Manager of the Sirsa Branch wrote a letter to the Regional Manager on 3.6.1997 regarding the discontinuance of his services showing that the workamn worked with the management. Since his termination is in violation of the provisions of the Act, he is entitled to be reinstated in service.
Respondent management filed written reply controverting the averments and denied that the workman was ever employed by it. That he did not work for the management at any stage nor he was paid any salary.
Parties were given opportunities to lead its evidence.
In support of its case, workman appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as set out in the claim petition.
On the other hand the management has examined Sh. L.D. Batra who filed his affidavit supporting the case of the respondent management as find mention in the written statement.
I have heard Sh. R.K. Parmar, AR of the workman and
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, counsel for the management.
It was vehemently argued by the AR of the workman that workman was employed by the bank as Peon on 17.12.1993 and his services were terminated illegally on 15.5.1997 and since the bank has not produced the record including the payment vouchers, an inference be drawn that he actually worked for the respondent management continuosly from 17.12.1993 to 15.5.1997. I have considered the contentions.
It is the case of the workman that he was appointed as Peon on17.12.1993 and therefore, it was for the workman to prove this fact by leading cogent evidence. But no evidence has come on the file to show that he was ever appointed by the respondent management as alleged by the workman. Workman himself has stated that no appointment letter was issued to him. No record has come on the file that the workman was ever appointed as per Rules and Regulations governing the respondent management. Again nothing has come on the file to establish that the workman has ever received and salary from the management. Thought the bank has not produced the record relating to payment of wages from the year 1993 to 1997, but no adverse inference can be taken against it to the effect that workman was actually an employee of the bank and he has received the salary from it. However the bank has placed on record the photocopies of the attendance registers which are on the file and the name of the workman do not find mention therein for the period in question. Since there is no cogent evidence that workman was ever appointed and that too as per Rules and Regulations of the bank, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that he actually served the bank and being so, it cannot be said that his services were terminated by the respondent.
In result, it is held that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference is answered accordingly. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.
KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1294.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार युको बैंक के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायलय, जबलपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 108/99) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/200/98-आईआर (बी-II)]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 108/99) of the Central. Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/200/98-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer2702 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
3. IInd party filed Written Statement on 3-4-2013
opposing claim of workman. IInd party submits that BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR workman has not mentioned period of his working in the Bank. The statement of claim is filed on 16-5-07 claiming COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/108/99
Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, S/o Ramadhin Chakradhari, P.O. Hardibazaar, Tehsil Katkhera,
Bilaspur (MP)
...Workman that he was working on daily wages as messenger from 2-8-88. Bank has no documents. As per available record,
workman was never working as peon in Gevra Project. There
was no vacancy of messenger. Notification of vacancy was not issued. Workman did not submit application for
any job. Workman was never appointed on vacant post following recruitment rules. Attendance register was not
Versus
Regional Manager, UCO Bank Divisional Office, No. 97, Anandnagar,
Raipur
...Management maintained. Workman has not produced salary receipt, contingency record voucher, record of payment vouchers.
He has not produced documents in support of his claim.
That he worked more than 240 days preceding termination of his service. That as per settled legal position for claiming
benefit under Section 25-F of ID Act, workman has to submit evidence. Documents on record like salary sheet,
attendance register to establish working more than 240
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of May 2015
1. As per letter dated 28-2/8-3/99 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/200/98-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference ralates to:
"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank Divisional Office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, Messenger
of UCO Bank Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP w.e.f. 10.5.97 without following the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the parties. Workman sbumitted to claim at Page 11/1 to 11/2. days. It is reiterated that the management had submitted applicaiton under Rule 10(B) on 29th March, 2010
requesting production of document by workman. Workman has not responded to it. On such ground, II party prays for
rejection of claim.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the Termination of
management of UCO Bank workman is not Divisional Office, Raipur (MP) proved.
in terminating the services of
Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, Messenger of UCO Bank
Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP w.e.f. 10.5.97 is legal and justifed?
(ii) If not, what relief the Workman is not
workman is entttled to?" entitled to any relief.
REASONS
Case of Ist party is workman is that he was engaged on daily wages in UCO Bank Gevra Branch from 2-8-88. He was initially paid wages Rs. 12,25, revised wages Rs. 62/- per day. The wages were deposited in Account No. 2344/ 09 of workman. He was doing work of arranging files. The work related to the post office and bank was done by him.
He had written various letters to the Branch Manager, Gevra Branch. He completed 240 days continuous service as per circular dated 19-10-89. He was working 8 hours per day. Documents are not available with him. He had repeatedly asked management reasons for his termination but no reply was given. He was honestly working in the Bank. His
services are illegally terminated. On such ground workman
prays for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
5. The terms of reference relates to legality of termination
of services of workman by IInd party for violation of Section 25-F of ID Act. Workman has filed statement of claim.
Thereafter he did not participate in reference proceeding.
Workman failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim. The evidence of workman was closed on 23-1-2014.
6. Management filed affidavit of his witness Shri Dharam Singh supporting contentions of IInd party in Written[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2703
ANNEXURE
Statement. That workman was not appointed following
recruitment rules as messenger on vacant post. Workman
had not completed 240 days continuous service. Workman CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
was never engaged as peon in the Bank. The evidence of Reference No. 19 of 2012
management's witness remained unchallenged. From Parties:
evidence of management's witness documetns Exhibit M-
1, M-2 are admitted in evidence. Document Exhibit M-1 is
copy of Certificate dated 19-10-89 dealing with empanelment
and absorption of persons engaged on daily wages. Exhibit
W-2 is copy of circular dated 31-3-90 pertaining to
empanelment and absorption of persons engaged in daily
wages in terms of settlement dated 12-10-89. As workman Employers in relaiton to the mangement of Bank of India
AND
Their workmen
Present : Justice Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE:
has not participated in reference, no evidence is adduced
by workman to support his claim or termination of his
service by IInd party, I record my finding in Point No. 1 that
engagement and termination of services of workman by
IInd party is not proved.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of UCO Bank
Divisional Office, Raipur (MP) in terminating the On behalf of the : Mr. S. Chakraborty, Ld. counsel Mangement
On behalf of the : None Workmen
State : West Bengal Industry: Banking
Dated: 23rd April, 2015,
AWARD
services of Shri Munnalal Chakradhary, Messenger
of UCO Bank Branch Gevra Distt. Bilaspur MP w.e.f.
10-5-97 is not proved.
(2) Workman is not entitled to any relief.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1295.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 19/2012) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-12012/50/2012-आईआर (बी-II)] रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2012) of the Central.
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kolkata
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 22/06/2015.
[No. L-12012/50/2012-IR (B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer By Order No. L-12012/50/2012-IR(B-II) dated 23.11.12 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Indsutrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits upon Shri Badhu Ram Murmu, Ex-Staff-Clerk-Cashier vide Order dated 30.06.2009, is legal and justified? What relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"
2. When the case is taken up for hearing today, none appears on behalf of the workman though the management is represented by its Ld. Counsel.
3. From the record it appears that the concerned workman has already passed away. No application has yet been filed by the heir(s) of the deceased workman for substitution. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the heirs of the deceased workman is/are not interested about this case. So, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the present reference pending further.
In view of the above, present reference is disposed of
by passing a "No Dispute" Award.
Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer
Dated, Kolkata, The 23rd April, 20152704 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1296.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडिया गेटवे टर्मिनल लि॰ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय अरूनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 41/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-35025/01/2014-आईआर (बी-II) रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), of the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 41/2014) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of India Gateway Terminal Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.06.2015.
[No. L-35025/01/2014-IR(B-II)] RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(I) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-35025/ 01/2014-IR(B-II) dated 22.08.2014 referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
"Whether the demand of Swathanthra Container Lorry Thozhilali Union for regularization of services of Shri Amal Babu. K.B., Andral Stessel Faria, George, K.M., Antony Resil C.J., Sarush. T.S. Sijoy George working as reefer technicians and Shri Kannan. AR, Nikhil, KP, Arun Jacob Junior reefer technicians en- gaged by M/s. India Gateway Terminal Private Ltd. through contractors is justified or not? What relief the workers are entitled.
ANNEXURE
3. After receipt of summons both union and management entered appearance. When the case stood posted for claim statement learned counsel for both sides have submitted that the workmen involved in this industrial dispute were absorbed in the regular service of the contractor after the reference and as they are satisfied with their present position it is not necessary to further proceed with the I.D. Union has also filed a memo stating that as those workmen were already absorbed in service no adjudication is necessary. As there exists no dispute, the ID is disposed of by passing 'no dispute award.'
The award will come into force one month after its BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SHRI D. SREEVALLABHAN, B.SC., LLB,
Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 23rd day of April, 2015/3rd Vaisakha, 1937) publication in the Official Gazette.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2015
ID 41/2014
Union : Swathanthra Container Lorry
Thozhilali Union C/23/1573, Kizhakke Ayyamveliparambu KMP Nagar, Palluruthy COCHIN-682006
By Adv. Shri C. Anilkumar
Management : India Gateway Terminal Limited
Regd. Office, Administration Building
ICTT, Vallarpadam. SEZ Ernakulam-682504
By M/s Menon & Pai
This case coming up for final hearing on 23.04.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:
का.आ. 1297.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन पतन न्यास के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय अरूनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं. 3/2013) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-35011/02/2012-आईआर (बी-II]
रवि कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2015
S.O. 1297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), of the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 3/2013) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Cochin Port Trust[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2705 and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22.06.2015.
[No. L-35011/02/2012-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-
TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PRESENT: SHRI D. SREEVALLABHAN, B.SC., LL.B, Presiding Officer
(Thursday the 30th day of April, 2015/10th Vaisakha, 1937)
involved in the ID do not want any relief. Union has filed a statement stating that out of the three workmen Shri E.C. Thilodharan and Shri P L Jospeh had already retired from service and Shri K V Suresh Babu left the union abandoning the relief sought through this dispute and hence there is no existing dispute to be adjudicated for granting any relief to them. A copy of the same was served to management. Learned Counsel for the management has submitted that as there exists no dispute between the parties a 'no dispute award' can be passed in this case. As the union does not want any adjudication since there is no existing dispute a 'no dispute award' is passed in this case.
The award will come into force one month after its
publication in the Official Gazette.
D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer
ID 3/2013
Union : The General Secretary
Cochin Port Staff Association Wellingdon Island Cochin-682006
By M/s. A.V. Xavier
Management : The Chairman
Cochin Port Trust W/Island Cochin-682009
By M/s B.S. Krishnan Associates
This case coming up for final hearing on 29.04.2015 and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the 30.4.2015 passed the following:
नई दिल्ली, 23 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1298.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी॰सी॰आई॰ के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 28/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/220/2004-आईआर (सीएम-II]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015
AWARD
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government/Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-35011/2/ 2012-IR(B-II) dated 03.12.2012 referred the industrial dispute scheduled thereunder for adjudication to this tribunal.
2. The dispute is:
S.O. 1298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), of the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2005) of the Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23.06.2015.
[No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
"Whether the action of the management of Cochin Port Trust in denying the request of three mazdoors in the patch work section for regularisation in the black smith section, if no regular and substantive post of basic tradesman (Tinsmith) is available in the workshop, is legal and justified? What relief workmen concerned are entitled to?"
PRESENT: Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 28/2005 Ref. No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005
Between
3. At the time when the case stood posted for evidence after submission of the respective pleadings by both parties learned counsel for the Union has submitted that it is not necessary to have any adjudication as there exists no dispute between the parties and the workmen Shri Amrit Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhawandin Vill. Sikanderpur (Jankipur) Lucknow.
2706 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]And
1. The Director, Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India Doordarshan Kendra Lucknow
2. The Director General (Doordarshan). Doordarshan Broadcasting Corporation of India Prasar Bharati, Directorate of Doordarshan New Delhi.
AWARD
1. By order No. L-42012/220/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Amrit Lal Yadav S/o Late Shri Bhawandin, Vill. Sikanderpur (Jankipur), Lucknow and the Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow & the Director General (Doordarshan), Doordarshan Broadcasting Corporation of India, Prasar Bharati, Directorate of Doordarshan, New Delhi for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Kya Prabandhan, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow/New Delhi Dwara Shri Amrit Lal Yadav Putra Sw. Shri Bhagwandeen Casual Programme Staff Shreni C Ko Seewa Main Niyamitikaran N Kar Ke Dinank 11.07.2001 Se Naukari Se Nikal Diya Jana Uchit Tatha Nayaysangat Hai? Yadi Nahi, to Karmkaar Kis Anutosh Ko Pane ka Adhikaari Hai?"
3. The case of the workman Amrit Lal Yadav in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party as Casual Programme Staff in Group 'C' category on 07.07.1986 and he worked regularly up to 10.07.2001. It has been submitted by the workman that there had been a scheme for regularization of the casual employees dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994; but the management did not regularize his services stating that the workman is over age by one year three months and eight days. It has been alleged by the workman that the management contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of the management in denying him regularization be declared illegal and he be regularized into the services.
4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it was submitted that the workman had never been appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore, there is no question of termination or retrenchement of his services w.e.f. 10.07.2001. It was submitted that the workman was engaged for short spells to carryout casual nature of work purely on the basis of actual requirement of programme production for not more than 10 days in a month. It was further submitted that the workman's case was considered for regularization, it terms of regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994, but he was found ineligible being over age in terms of scheme dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could not be regularized. It is also submitted that all those who were regularized by the management were regularized in accordance with regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994. Accordingly, the management of the Doordarshan has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit.
5. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he has stated that his date of birth is 10.03.1959 as per his matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and 12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization, in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated 08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year. Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6. The parties have adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The workman has examined himself whereas the management has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer in support of their pleadings. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against the management.
7. Heard the authorized representative of the workman alone and gone through entire evidence available on record.
8. The workman's representative has submitted that the workman has been engaged as Casual Programme Staff by the opposite party on 07.07.1986 and worked as such till 10.07.2001 regularly when his services have been terminated by the opposite party without assigning any rhyme or reason or any notice pay or any notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention to the provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also argued that when he was in service the management devised a scheme for regularizing the casual artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as casual artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991, but the management did not regularize his services in spite of the fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and conditions of the said regularization schemes. The workman has argued that the management did not extend the benefits of the regularization to him taking excuse that he was over[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2707 age; but he was well under age when joined the opposite party and also after giving him age relaxation as provided in the regularization scheme his services would have regularized. It is also argued that the management was required to regularized the seniors first and for this the management was ought to maintain seniority list/muster roll as envisaged under the provisions contained in the Section 25 D of the Act; but the management not only failed to comply with the provisions of the Section 25 D of the Act; but also regularized many juniors viz. Shri Umesh Chandra Mishra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit, ignoring the workman. In this regard the workman has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti and others in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999.
9. Per contra, the management's case is that the workman was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged by the management to perform the work of casual nature as and when required, in short spells. His engagement ended with the end of work/engagement period; therefore, there is no question of terminating his services at any point of time. It was further pleaded that the case of the workman was considered for regularization, within the terms and conditions provided under the regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not qualify for the same, even after giving him permissible age relaxation.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and scanned entire evidence available on record.
rebuttal the management witness has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 directed the management to decide the cases of the casual artists in accordance with the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The workman was a party in the said SLP; and accordingly, his case was taken up by the management in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92; but he was found eligible for regularization even after giving him age relaxation.
12. The workman has relied on order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999 between Union of India & others vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti & others; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the questions raised in the appeals are squarely covered by a decision of the Court in Director, Doordarshan Kendera, Trivandrum and others vs. S. Kuttan Pillai and others (1998) 8 SCC 736. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding the case, where norms for relaxation of age for the purpose of regularization and for the purpose of recruitment were different in respect of respondent Floor Assistants engaged on casual basis in the Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum seeking regularization, held that the relaxation in age could be granted to the respondents only in accordance with the scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.2004.
13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features of the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94.
"No. 1516/2(3) Dated: 09.06.1992
Office Memorandum
11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no regular appointment of the workman and he was engaged by the opposite party management on casual basis to work as Casual Programme Staff for specified time period on fixed payment. He was also given breaks and or his engagement used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/ period.
Subject: Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in
Doordarshan.
Annexure to the above OM.
It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the parties that in pursuance to the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. No. 563/86 between Anil Kumar Mathur vs. Union of India, a scheme for regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was launched vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, which was further modified vide Office Memorandum dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. All the Casual Artists who were employed on casual basis on 31.12.1991, including those who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services at that time were eligible for consideration. In this regard the workman's case is that the management regularized other juniors, sparing him in spite of the fact that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the scheme; and in Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgement in OA No. 563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s. Anil Kumar Mathur vs. Uol case.
1. This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual Artists who were employed on Casual basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration.
2708 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]2. Only those Casual who had been engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken period in between the engagement and disengagement will be ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance sheets or Q-sheets.
3. Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon the length of service of Casual Artists. They will be considered for regularization in the order of their seniority against the available vacancies in that particular Kendra. The seniority will be determined from the date of their initial engagemnet by the Kendra.
4. The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one Kendra will have no right for claiming regularization in another Kendra as these are generally Group 'C' posts and selection is made Kendra-wise.
5. The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should possess the requisite educational requisite qualification and/or experience as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of other administrative insturctions (in the absence of Recruitment Rules) existing for the post when the casual worker was initially engaged.
6. The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time of regularization. A minimum of 120 days service in the aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose. The service rendered for less than 120 days in a year will not qualify for age relaxation.
to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number of days for the purpose of regularization is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or Attendance Sheets or 'Q' sheets.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate that although these Casual Staff Artists were engaged for 10 days or have been working on 2-3 assignments in a month on a consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500 per assignment, but in actual practice, they have been working throughout the month. This aspect has been examined by the Directorate in consultation with Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed for arriving at the number of days of casual working will be as under.
3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to the prevalent in the state during the relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artists has been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have worked for 30 dyas in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.
4. It has also been noticed that certain staff artists were engaged initially when there were over-age according to the Recruitment Rules. All such cases, with the number of days they worked on casual basis accoding to the formula laid down in Para 3, should be referred to the Directorate for taking a decision on merit."
"No. 4(1)/94-S.I. Dated: 05.07.94
Office Memorandum
7. The regularization of Casual Artists would be from prospective date and the Casual Artists on the eligibility panel who fail to qualify for regularization in accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions issued there under the post, shall be removed from the panel.
8. If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a misconduct and the same is...........................would not be eligible for regularization.
9. Till all the Casual Artists.............................no panel of
eligible "Casual Artists."
"No. 2(J)/ -S.1 Dated: 17.03.1994 Sub: Regularization of Casual Artists as per revised Scheme
dtd. 13.0.94
The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras in invited to this Directorate; Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated 17.03.1994, copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various Doordharsan Kendras have sought certain clarifications on a number of points in regard to Revised Scheme, these points are clarified as under:—
Office Memorandum
Sub: Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in
Doordarshan
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to DG: D.O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated. According (a) Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility list of Casual Artist in accordance with Para 3 of the Revised Scheme and regularize them against available vacancies in their respective category on the basis of seniority.
(b) .....................
(c) The crucial date for the purpose of calculation of age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and there is no change in it.
(d) For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of days engagement should be taken into account up[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2709 to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any, beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be counted for the purpose of age relaxation.
(e) Casual Artists who have worked for 120 days in any calendar year as per revised scheme too up to the period ending on 31st December, 1991 should be considered for regularization. The casuals who have completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are not currently counted for regularization.
(f) ..............
(g) ..............
(h) The rates of wages prevalent by the State Government from time to time by way of minimum wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to be taken for calculation of number of days of Casual Artists at that Kendra. The total amount paid to an individual Casual Artist during the month are to be devided by per day rate of payment of minimum wage for calculation of number of days in a month. The classification in different scales of pay/fee in Group 'C' and 'D' etc. is not required. The maximum number of days so calcualted should be restricted to 25 days in a month.
(i) ..............
(j) Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989 are not prescribed and available, the computation of number of days should be done by the following formula:—
Total amount paid during the month/30 = Amount for one day.
The maximum number of days so arived at should be restricted to 25 days in month only."
A bare perusal of the above office memorandums shows that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 was available to those casual artists who were employed on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar year. Also, the casual artist should have been in possession of requisite education qualification and experience. Also, they should have been within the upper age limit, which was relaxable to the extent of services rendered by the casual Artist at the time of relaxation i.e. on 31.12.1991. However, the modifications to the scheme dated 09.06.92 were issued vide scheme dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.1994; but the crucial date for eligibility and for the purpose of calculation of age and age relaxation etc. remained same as that in the scheme dated 09.06.92.
14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible for regularization within the terms and conditions of the above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the workman is that he was engaged on 07.07.1986 as Casual Programme Staff, when he was well within the age as prescribed in the Ruels, He has filed photocopy of his matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 01.03.1959. He has also filed photocopy of advertisement seeking application for the post of Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it comes out that when the workman was engaged initially he was well within the prescribed age for the post; but when the scheme for regularization dated. 09.06.92 came into force he had become over age on the crucial date of eligibility i.e. on 31.12.91 when he was approximately of 32 years and 09 months' age. Moreover, it is the case of the management that the case of the workman was considered within the terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, 07.03.94 and 05.04.94; but he could not get the benefit of regularization being overage by one year three months and eight days. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that as per age relaxation clause provided in the scheme, a casual artist can get age relaxation with respect to the upper age limit, to the extent of services rendered by him at the time of regulaization. As per scheme, for upper age relaxation, a minimum of 120 days service in the aggregate, in one year, was required to be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose, service rendered for lesss than 120 days in year were not be considered for age relaxation. The workman as alleged that the management did not give any weightage for the services rendered by him for considering age relaxation, which resulted in to his disqualification for the regularization. In this respect, the management of the Doordarshan in its evidence has stated that the workman was provided age relaxation of two years even than he could not qualify the terms of regularization being over age.
15. The workman his pleadings, pleaded that he was within the age limit when initially engaged; but got over age during his engagement. He has further pleaded that had he been given age relaxation, he would have come within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This pleading of the workman has been denied by the management through pleadings as well as in its evidence with specific statement that the workman was given two years age relaxation since he had completed 120 days in the year 1987 and 1988; even then he failed to qualify for regularization as per regularization schemes. As per settled law, the initial burden was on the workman to prove before this Tribunal that he was eligible for age relaxtion and for this he was required to prove, through cogent evidence, that he actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in a calendar year for seeking age relaxation in order to come within the purview of terms of regularization scheme.
In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from the advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed2710 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per matriculation certificate, filed by the workman, his date of birth is 01.03.1959, which goes to show that his age on the cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 31.12.1991 was 32 years and 09 months. Therefore, it is apparent that the workman was over age by 02 years and 09 months only. Also, as per pleadings and statement of the management witness, the workman was permitted 02 years age relaxation as he worked for 120 days in the years 1987 and 1988. As per O.M. dated 05.07.94. Thus, it comes out that the workman fell short of relaxation for 09 months only.
16. Admittedly, the workman worked with the management, intermittently; but the workman has neither given any detail for his working nor any reliable proof for payments made to him during different calendar years of engagement as contended by him. For calculating 120 days working a formula has been enumerated in the scheme dated 17.03.1994 vide para 03 as under:
"3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs. 50, the Staff Artists would be deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.
The above method of calculating the working days is based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the relevant time. The workman has not provided the details of his working days or monthly payment made to him the management. He has not even tried to summon the relevant documents from the management i.e. engagement letters, payment slips or vouchers or attendance sheets or 'Q' Sheets as envisaged in the scheme itself. Since the workman has not filed any details regarding the payments received by him in different years of his engagement it is not possible to calculate the number of working days in a calendar year to grant age relaxation to the workman.
Per contra, the case of the management is quite clear in this regard; whereby it has pleaded in para 04 of its written statement that the services of the workman were obtained indifferent spells as per details given hereunder:
Year No. of days worked
1986 15
1987 121 days
1988 187 days
1989 17 days
From perusal of the above working details given by the management, it comes out that the management has granted two years age relaxation in terms of scheme for regularization. Hence, in view of the specific pleading and evidence of the management, regarding working of the workman, which makes him entitled for age relaxation for only two years, it was incumbent upon the workman to prove, through cogent evidence that he actually worked for 120 days in successive years of his engagement to grant him further age relaxation as proved in the schemes dated 09.06.92 specifically the scheme dated 17.03.94.
The workman utterly failed to established that he actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in more than two calendar years to given him benefit of age relaxation as per scheme dated 09.06.92; and in the absence of any proof it is hard to carve any finding that the workman was entitled for regularization in terms of scheme dated 17.03.94, after giving age relaxation of approximately more than two years.
16. As regard termination of the workman on 10.07.2001, the management has pleaded that the workman was never appointed by the opposite party; rather he was engaged for short spells on casual basis as and when required by it. This fact is admitted by the workman in pleadings as well as in his evidence. Moreover, the workman himself has filed offer letters which goes to show that he had been engaged by the management for specified time, therefore, the end of engagement on completion of task or engagement period does not amounts to termination of services.
17. The workman pleaded that the management has terminated his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In this regard the burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid down in 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar Panchayat and another vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the workman failed to prove that he had been in employment with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not entitled to the protection, in compliance of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of the continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2711
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present :
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 34/2005 Ref. No. L-42012/183/2004-IR (CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005
Between
Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in order to take any relief for non-compliance of manadatory provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect that he was actually in employment of the opposite party for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there is pleading that provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, have not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence to show that the workman worked for 240 days with the management of Doordarshan in twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman has failed to substantiate this fact that the workman worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination.
18. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. I am of considered opinion that the workman's claim for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman, Amrit Lal Yadav; as such he is not entitled for any relief.
19. Award as above.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena S/o Late N.L. Saxena 240, Phoolbagh Lucknow
And
1. The Director, Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India Doordarshan Kendra Lucknow
2. The Director General, Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India Doordarshan, Directorate General of Doordarshan New Delhi.
AWARD
LUCKNOW Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
05th May, 2014.
नई दिल्ली, 23 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1299.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बी॰सी॰आई॰ के प्रबंध्तंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 34/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/183/2004-आईआर (सीएम-II)]
मो. जाहिद शरीफ, अनुभाग अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015
S.O. 1299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Broadcasting Corporation of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 23/ 06/2015.
[No. L-42012/183/2004-IR (CM-II)]
Md. ZAHID SHARIF, Section Officer 1. By order No. L-42012/183/2004-IR(CM-II) dated: 04.08.2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, S/o Late N.L. Saxena, 240, Phoolbagh, Lucknow and the Director, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow & the Director General, Prasar Bharati, Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan, Directorate General of Doordarshan, New Delhi for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Kya Prabandhan, Doordarshan Kendra, Lucknow/New Delhi Dwara Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena putra Sw. Shri N.L. Saxena, akasmik floor sahayak ko Sewa Main Niyamiti Na Kar Ke Dinank 11.07.2001 Se Naukari se nikal diya jana uchit tatha nayaysangat hai? Yadi nahi, to Karmkaar kis anutosh pane ka adhikaari hai?"
3. The case of the workman, Akhilesh Kumar Saxena, in brief, is that he was engaged by the opposite party as Casual Floor Assistant on 14.12.1984 and he worked regularly up to 20.07.2001. It has been submitted by the workman that there had been a scheme for regularization of the casual employees dated 09.06.1992, 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994; but the management did not regularize his2712 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] services stating that the workman is over age. It has been alleged by the workman that the management terminated his services on 20.07.2001 without following the due procedure as contained in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of the management in denying him regularization be declared illegal and he be regularized into the services.
4. The management of the Doordarshan has denied the claim of the workman by filing its written statement; wherein it was submitted that the workman had never been appointed as a casual artist adhoc or otherwise, no appointment letter was issued to the workman, therefore, there is no question of termination or retrenchment of his services w.e.f. 20.07.2001. It was submitted that the workman was engaged for short spells to carryout casual nature of work purely on the basis of actual requirment of programme production for not more than 10 days in a month. It was further submitted that the workman's case was considered for regularization, in terms of regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 as well as the modified scheme dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994, but he was found ineligible being over age by four years nine months and six days, in terms of scheme dated 09.06.1992, therefore, he could not be regularized. It is also submitted that all those who were regularized by the management were regularized in accordance with regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 and 17.03.1994. Accordingly, the management of the Doordarshan has prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected being devoid of merit.
5. The workman had filed its rejoinder wherein he has stated that his date of birth is 03.09.1956 as per his matriculation certificate and as per Rules the age limit for the post of Production Assistant is 21-30 years. It was further stated that the case of Smt. Dixit whose date of birth and date of initial engagement was 26.07.61 and 12.02.91 respectively, was considered for regularization, in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, as per direction of Hon'ble CAT, Lucknow in O.A. No. 500/95 vide order dated 08.11.2001 and she was given age relaxation of one year. Rest is mere reiteration of the averments already made in the statement of claim.
6. The parties have adduced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective cases. The workman has examined himself whereas the management has examined Shri G.P. Pandey, Senior Administrative Officer in support of their pleadings. The parties availed opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of each other. The workman forwarded its oral arguments; but the management refrained to argue its case in spite of ample opportunities have been forwarded to them; accordingly, the case was heard ex-parte against the management.
7. Heard the authorized representative of the workman alone and gone through entire evidence available on record.
8. The workman's representative has submitted that the workman has been engaged as Casual Floor Assistant by the opposite party on 14.12.1984 and worked as such till 20.07.2001 regularly when his services have been terminated by the opposite party without assigning any rhyme or reason or any notice pay or any notice pay in lieu thereof in contravention to the provisions contained in the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also argued that when he was in service the management devised a scheme for regularizing the casual artists, vide dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94, who worked as casual artists with the opposite party as on 31.12.1991; but the management did not regularize his services in spite of the fact that he was fully eligible within the terms and conditions of the said regularization shcemes. The workman has argued that the management did not extend the benefits of the regularization to him taking excuse that he was over age, but he was well under age when joined the opposite party and also after giving him age relaxation as provided in the regularization scheme his services would have regularized. It is also argued that the management was required to regularized the seniors first and for this the managment was ought to maintain seniority list/muster roll as envisaged under the provisions contained in the Section 25 D of the Act; but the management not only failed to comply with the provisions of the Section 25 D of the Act; but also regularized many juniors viz. Shri Umesh Chandra Mihra, Mo. Nasir, Rakesh Kumar Kukreti, Ramesh Chandra Shukla, Mueen Ansari, Sishir Kumar Singh, Atul Mishra, Smt. Rekha Gupta, Smt. Seem Kazmi and Anjali Dixit, ignoring the workman. In this regard the workman has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti and others in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999.
9. Per contra, the case of the management is that the workman was never appointed by it; rather he was engaged by the management to perform the work of casual nature as and when required, in short spells. His engagement ended with the end of work/engagement period; therefore, there is no question of terminating his services at any point of time. It was further pleaded that the case of the workman was considered for regularization, within the terms and conditions provided under the regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not qualify for the same, even after giving him permissible age relaxation.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and scanned entire evidence available on record.
11. In the present case, admittedly, there was no regular appointment of the workman and he was engaged by the opposite party management on casual basis to work as Casual Floor Assistant for specified time period on fixed payment. He was also given breaks or his engagement used to come to an end with the end of the specified work/ period.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2713Annexure to the above OM.
It has come into the pleadings and evidence of the parties that in pursuance to the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi vide their order dated 14.02.92 in O.A. 563/86 between Anil Kumar Mathur vs. Union of India, a scheme for regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan was launched vide Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1992, which was further modified vide office memorandum dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. All the Casual Artists who were employed on casual basis on 31.12.1991, including those who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services at that time were eligible for consideration. In this regard the workman's case is that the management regularized other juniors, sparing him in spite of the fact that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the scheme; and in rebuttal the management witness has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2002 in Civil Appeal No. 1122- 1136 directed the management to decide the cases of the casual artists in accordance with the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified scheme vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. The workman was a party in the said SLP; and accordingly, his case was taken up by the management in terms of scheme dated 09.06.92; but he was not found eligible for regularization even after giving him age relaxation.
12. The workman has relied on order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1122-1136 of 1999 between Union of India & others vs. Rakesh Kumar Kukreti & others; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the question is raised in the appeals are squarely covered by a decision of the Court in Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum and others vs. S. Kuttan Pillai and others (1998) 8 SCC 736. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kuttan Pillai case, while deciding the case, where norms for relaxation of age for the purpose of regularization and for the purpose of recruitment were different in respect of respondent Floor Assistants engaged on casual basis in the Doordarshan Kendra, Trivandrum seeking regularization, held that the relaxation in age could be granted to the respondents only in accordance with the scheme notified by the OM dated 09.06.1992 as modified by OMs dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1004.
13. Thus, the point for consideration is whether the workman was eligible for regularization in terms of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 and thereafter modified vide dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.94. For apt appreciation of the case of the workman regularization on merit it would be necessary to quote the salient features of the relevant regularization schemes dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94.
"No. 1516/2(3) Dated: 09.06.1992 Scheme for regularization of casual erstwhile staff Artists in Doordarshan as per the judgement in OA No. 563/86, dated 14.2.1992 in M/s Anil Kumar Mathur vs. UoI case.
1. This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual Artists who were employed on Casual basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration.
2. Only those Casual who had been engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a year (calendar year) will be eligible for regularization. The broken period in between the engagement and disengagement will be ignored for the purpose. The number of days is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the muster rolls or attendance sheets or Q-sheets.
3. Separate eligibility panels will be prepared for each category of posts, Kendra-wise, depending upon the length of service of Casual Artists. They will be considered for regularization in the order of their seniority against the available vacancies in that particular Kendra. The seniority will be determined from the date of their initial engagement by the Kendra.
4. The persons who are in the eligibility panel of one Kendra will have no right for claiming regularization in another Kendra as these are generally Group 'C' posts and selection is made Kendra-wise.
5. The Casual Artists who are to be regularized should possess the requisite educational qualification and/or experience as stipulated in the Recruitment Rules of other administrative instructions (in the absence of Recruitment Rules) existing for the post when the casual worker was initially engaged.
6. The upper age limit would be relaxed to that extent of service rendered by the Casual Artists at the time of regularization. A minimum of 120 days service in the aggregate, in one year, shall be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose. The service rendered for less than 120 days in a year will not qualify for age relaxation.
7. The regularization of Casual Artists would be from prospective date and the Casual Artists on the eligibility panel who fail to qualify for regularization in accordance with the recruitment rules and instructions issued there under for the post shall be removed from the panel.
Office Memorandum
Subject: Scheme for Regularization of Casual Artists in
Doordarshan.
8. If a Casual Artist on an eligibility panel commits a mis- conduct and the same is..................................would not be eligible for regularization.
2714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Till all the Casual Artists........................no panel of eli-
gible Casual Artists."
"No. 2(J)/ S.1 Dated: 17.03.1994
Kendras have sought certain clarifications on a number of points in regard to revised scheme, these points are clarified as under:-
Office Memorandum
Sub: Scheme for regularization of Casual Artists in Doordarshan
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to DG:D O.M. of even number dated 09.06.92 on the above subject, with which a copy of the scheme for regularization of Casual Artists of Doordarshan was circulated. Accordings to condition in para 2 of the scheme, the number of days for the purpose of regularization is to be computed on the basis of actual working days in the Muster Rolls or Attendance Sheets or 'Q' sheets.
2. It has been brought to the notice of this Directorate that although these Casual Staff Artists were engaged for 10 days or have been working on 2-3 assignments in a months on a consolidated amount of Rs. 400-500 per assignment, but in actual practice, they have been working throughout the month. This aspect has been examined by the Directorate in consultation with Ministry of I&B and procedure to be followed for arriving at the number of days of casual working will be as under.
3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.
4. It has also been noticed that certain staff artists were engaged initially when they were over-age according to the Recruitment Rules. All such cases, with the number of days they worked on casual basis according to the formula laid down in Para 3, should be referred to the Directorate for taking a decision on merit."
No. 4(1)/94-S.I. Dated: 05.07.94 (a) Kendras are competent to prepare the eligibility list of Casual Artist in accordance with para 3 of the Revised Scheme and regularise them against available Vacancies in their respective category on the basis of seniority.
(b) ...........................
(c) The cruical date for the purpose of calculation of age is the same as in 1992 Scheme, i.e. 09.06.92 and there is no change in it.
(d) For the purpose of the age relaxation, the number of days engagement should be taken into account up to 09.06.92. The peroid of engagement, if any, beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be counted for the purpose of age relaxation
(e) Casual Artist who have worked for 120 days in any calendar year as per revised scheme too up to the period ending on 31st December, 1991 should be considered for regularization. The casuals who have completed 120 days after 31.12.1991 are not currently counted for regularization.
(f) ...........
(g) ..........
(h) The rates of wages prevalent by the state Government from time to time by the way of minimum wage Act in which Kendra concerned falls, are to be taken for calculation of number of days of Casual Artists of that Kendra. The total amount paid to an individual Casual Artist during the month are to be divided by per day rate of payment of minimum wage for the calculation of number of days in a month. The classification in the differnece scales of pay/fee in Group 'C' and 'D' etc. is not required. The Maximum numbers of days so calculated should be restricted to 25 days in a month.
(i) ............
(j) Where the minimum wage Act prior to 01.05.1989 are not prescibed and available, the computation of number of days should be done by the following formula:—
Total amount paid during the month/30= Amount for
Office Memorandum
one day.
The maximum number of days so arrived at should be
Subject: Regularization of Casual Artist as per revised restricted to 25 days in a month only."
scheme dtd. 13.-.94
The attention of all Doordarshan Kendras is invited to this Directorate's Memo No. 2(3)/86-S.I., dated 17.03.1994, copy enclosed, on the above subject. Various Doordarshan A bare persual of the above office memorandum shows that the benefit of the regularization scheme dated 09.06.92 was available to those casual artists who were employed[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2715 on casual basis as on 31.12.1991 and were engaged for an aggregate period of 120 days in a calendar year. Also, the casual artists should have been in possession of requisite education qualification and experience. Also, they should have been within the upper age limit, which was relaxable to the extent of services rendered by the casual Artists at the time of relaxation i.e. on 31.12.1991. However, the modifications to the scheme dated 09.06.92 were issued vide scheme dated 17.03.94 and 05.07.1994; but the crucial date for eligibility and for the purpose of calculation of age and age relaxation etc. remained same as that in the scheme dated 09.06.92
14. Now, entering into the merit of the case, the matter has to be examined as to whether the workman was eligible for regularization within the terms and conditions of the above quoted schemes. In this regard the case of the workman is that he was engaged on 14.12.1984 as Casual Floor Assistant, when he was well within the age as prescribed in the Rules. He has filed photocopy of his matriculation certificate wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 03.09.1956. He has also filed photocopy of advertisement seeking application for the post of Production Assistant; wherein the prescribed age limit for the post has been mentioned as 21-30 years. Therefore, it comes out that when the workman was engaged initially he was well within the prescribed age for the post; but when the scheme for regularization dated 09.06.92 came into force he had become over-age on the crucial date of eligibility i.e. on 31.12.92; then he was approximately of 35 years 03 month and 28 days' age. Moreover, it is the case of the management that the case of the workman was considered within the terms of scheme dated 09.06.92, 17.03.94 and 05.07.94; but he could not get the benefit of regularization being overage. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that as per age relaxation clause provided in the scheme, a casual artist can get age relaxation with respect to the upper age limit, to the extent of services rendered by him at the time of regularization. As per scheme, for upper age relaxation a minimum of 120 days service in the aggregate, in one year, was required to be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose, service rendered for less than 120 days in a year were not be considered for age relaxation. The workman has alleged that the management did not give any weightage for the services rendered by him for considering age relaxation, which resulted into his disqualification for the regularization. In this respect, the management of the Doordarshan in its evidence has stated that the workman was provided age relaxation of two years even then he could not qualify the terms of regularization being over-age.
15. The workman has pleaded that he was within the age limit when initially engaged, but got over age during his engagement. He has further pleaded that had he been given age relaxation, he would have come within the ambit of the regularization scheme. This pleading of the workman has been denied by the management through pleadings as well as in its evidence with specific statement that the workman was given age relaxation since he had completed 260 days in the year 1985; even then he failed to qualify for regularization as per regularization schemes. As per settlement law, the initial burden was on the workman to prove before this Tribunal that he was eligible for age relaxation and for this he was required to prove, through cogent evidence, that he actually worked for 120 days in aggregate in a calendar year for seeking age relaxation in order to come within the purview of terms of regularization scheme.
In this regard it is noteworthy to mention that from the advertisement of the post it is clear that the prescribed upper age limit for the post is 30 years and as per matriculation certificate, filed by the workman, his date of birth is 03.09.1956, which goes to show that his age on the cutoff date as per regularization scheme i.e. 31.12.1991 was 35 years 03 month and 28 days. Therefore, it is apparent that the workman was over-age by 05 years 03 month and 28 days only. Also, as per pleadings and statement of the management witness, the workman was permitted only one year's age relaxation as he worked for 25 days in 1984 and for 260 days in the years 1985.
16. For calculating 120 days working a formula has been enumerated in the scheme dated 17.03.1994 vide para 03 as under:
"3. The number of days for the purpose of regularization will be computed on the basis of actual wages given to the prevalent in the State during the relevant time of working. For example, if a Casual Staff Artist has been paid an aggregate sum of Rs. 1500 in a month whether for working for 10 days or for 2-3 assignments in a month and the minimum wage prevalent in the State at the relevant time was Rs. 50, the staff artists would be deemed to have worked for 30 days in a month (i.e. Rs. 1500 divided by 50) subject to the condition that the days so computed would not exceed 25 days in a month.
The above method of calculating the working days is based on the monthly payment made to a casual artist divided by minimum wages prevalent in the State at the relevant time. Admittedly, the workman worked with the management, intermittently; but the workman has not given any details of his working. However, he has given details of payment received by him vide paper No. C-9, which reflects the payment received by him from the management since his initial date of engagement i.e. from 14.12.1984 to 20.07.2001; as under:
Year Amount paid Remarks
14.12.1984 Rs. 414/- 25 days admitted by the employer No. 2
1985 Rs. 5149/- 260 days admitted by the employer No. 22716 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Year Amount paid Remarks
1996 Rs. 8750/- No comments by the employer
No. 2
1997 Rs. 3500/- -"-
1998 Rs. 22,000/- -"-
1999 Rs. 24,000/- -"-
2000 Rs. 34,200/- -"-
20.07.2001 Rs. 19,950/- -"-
Per contra, management has pleaded in para 07 of its written statement that the services of the workman were obtained in different spells as per details given hereunder:
Year No. of days worked
1984 25
1985 260 days
From perusal of the above working details given by the management, it comes out that the management has granted one year's age relaxation in terms of scheme for regularization. The above working details given by the management matches the payment/working details provided by the workman vide paper No. C-9; wherein he has stated that he worked for 25 days in 1984 and 260 days in 1985. Moreover, he has also given details of payment in successive years i.e. from 1996 to 20.07.2001 (alleged date of termination). Here it is pertinent to mention that the terms of regularization scheme dated 09.06.1992 vide para 01 provides that the scheme shall cover only those artists who were on the rolls of Doordarshan, though they may not be in service then will be eligible for consideration. It was specifically mentioned therein that those who are engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration. The relevant para is reproduced as under:
1. This scheme would be applicable to all those Casual Artists who were employed on Casual basis on 31.12.1991 including those who were on the rolls of the Doordarshan, though they may not be in services now will be eligible for consideration. Those who are engaged on casual basis after 31.12.1991 will not be eligible for consideration.
Moreover, the provisions of age relaxation were further clarified vide scheme dated 05.07.1994 which provided that any working/period of engagement after 09.06.1992 should not be counted for the purpose of age relaxation. The above provision vide scheme dated 05.07.1994 is as under:
d) For the purpose of age relaxation, the number of days engagement should be taken into account up to 09.06.92. The period of engagement, if any, beyond 09.06.92 in the year 1992 should not be counted for the purpose of age relaxation.
Hence, it is crystal clear that for considering the working for seeking age relaxation under regularization scheme, the working up to 09.06.1992 was relevant and rest working, if any, was of no use. It is clear that the workman worked for only two year i.e. in the year 1984 and 1985 in the relevant period. Thus, from the pleadings and evidence relied on by the parties it is apparent that the management rightly did not considered the working of the workman in the years from 1996 to 20.07.2001, as claimed by him. It is also established that the management was just in giving one year's age relaxation to the workman on the basis of his working with the Doordarshan and its action in not regularizaing the services of the workman in terms of regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994 being over-age does not appears to be illegal.
17. As regard termination of the workman on 20.07.2001, the management has pleaded that the workman was never appointed by the opposite party; rather he was engaged for short spells on casual basis as and when required by it. This fact is admitted by the workman in pleadings as well as in his evidence. Moreover, the workman himself has filed offer letters which goes to show that he was engaged by the management for specified time, therefore, disengagement on completion of task does not amounts to termination of services.
18. The workman pleaded that the management has terminated his services without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In this regard the burden lies upon the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days in preceding one years from the date of alleged termination as per provision of the Act and as per law laid down in 2005 (107 FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the workman failed to prove that he had been in employment with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not entitled to the protection, in of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of termination to decide the question of the continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or engagement for that year to show that he has worked with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."
Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2717
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 10th June, 2015
Present :
K. P. Prasanna Kumari, Presiding Officer
Industrial Dispute No. 1/2015
provisions contained in section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect that he was actually in employment of the opposite party for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he was actually paid for it. In the instant case although there is pleading that provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, have not been complied with, there is no piece of evidence to show that the workman worked for 240 days continuously in the twelve preceding months from the date of his alleged termination with the management of Doordarshan. It is pertinent to mention here that the workman has failed to substantiate this fact that he worked for 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination.
[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Cambodia Mills and their workman]
BETWEEN
19. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of considered opinion that the workman's claim for regularization in the services of the Doordarshan not sustainable in the eye of law being beyond the ambit of regularization schemes dated 09.06.1992 and the modified schemes dated 17.03.1994 and 05.07.1994. Accordingly, the reference is adjudicated against the workman, Akhilesh Kumar Saxena; as such he is not entitled for any relief.
20. Award as above.
Lucknow, 07 May, 2014
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer The General Secretary: 1st Party/Petitioner Union Coimbatore and Periyar District Dravida Panchalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam Coimbatore
AND
The General Manager: 2nd Party/Respondent Cambodia Mills, Trichy Road Ondipudur Coimbatore-641016
Appearance:
नई दिल्ली, 23 जून, 2015
For the 1st Party/Petitioner: M/s K. Venkatapathy,
G. Desingu, Advocates
For the 2nd Party/Respondent : Sri T. Jeeva, Authorized Representative
AWARD
का.आ. 1300.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार कंबोडिया मिल्स, कोइम्बटोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 1/2015) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42011/108/2014-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2015
S.O. 1300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Cambodia Mills, Coimbatore and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16.06.2015
[No. L-42011/108/2014-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer The Central Government, Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide its Order No. L-42011/108/2014-IR(DU) dated 22.12.2014 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether denial of employment from 09.12.2013 to 06.01.2014 in respect of Sri Shekar, Ticket No. 06-9354 after transfer by the Management of Cambodia Mills, Coimbatore is justifiable or not? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 1/2015 and issued notices to both sides. Both saides have entered appearance through their counsel and have filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
2718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]ANNEXURE
3. The petitioner and the Respondent have filed joint
memo in which it is stated that the Respondent had
conceded to the demand of the petitioner and so the claim CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
petition can be disposed as settled out of Court.
4. It is clear from the joint memo that the petitioner has
already received the relief he has claimed, as conceded by
Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer
I.D. 45/2007
the Respondent.
5. In the circumstance, the reference is answered against
the petitioner. An award is passed accordingly.
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer Reference No. L-42012/24/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.07.2007
Sh. Wahid Mohammed S/o Shri Haneef Mohammed R/o Kachhi Basti, Rajbagh, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
Witnesses Examined:
For the 1st Party/Petitoner Union : None
For the 2nd Party/Management : None
V/s
Documents Marked:
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No. Date Description
Nil
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
On the Management Side
18.05.2015
Ex. No. Date Description
Nil
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1301.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया, राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 45/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/24/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 45/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2015
[No. L-42012/24/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer 1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Wahid Mohammed, w.e.f. 30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 08.06.2003. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 30.08.2006[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2719 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Dispute Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non-co- operation of opposite party conciliation also filed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'Industry' according to the defintion of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.8.2006 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisified with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statment of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post udner grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely termporary &2720 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appoinment not there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Deparment of opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena vs. Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not coverad within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days is any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issued on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 8.6.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act.
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is in 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act.
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calender year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 29 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India... Appellant Vs. N. Sundaramoney.... Respondent.
(ii) Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. Vs. A/ Rajappa & others etc. etc.
(iii) 1983 LAB I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari ... Appellant Vs. Delhi Administration & others... Respondent.
(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Dlehi Vs. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce... Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).
(vi) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma, Petitioner Vs. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122)....Respondent.
(vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra Vs. Suresh Chandra.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 272117. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & others.... Respondent.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others... petitioner Vs. Union of India & others... Respondent.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena Vs. Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Dehradun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is not violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act, It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job and none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G, it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him and he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue no. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue no. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2,3, and 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue no. 1.
Issue no. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a 22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen— Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched worken who are citizens of India to2722 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross- examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit he has not given any statement that after his removal who was appointed & what was the place of appointment. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointede persons. He has also admitted that he had not submitted any written application for re-employment with the management. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cites by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
Issue no.4
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No.4 has dealt with that fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janapath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the case cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant, Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been palced by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed 26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 8.6.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2723 termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
worked in the year from 2003 to 2006. He has admitted that he has filed document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. The applicant has admitted that document W-2 has been filed by him in which the number of days of work in year 2006 is 83 & that is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration for calulating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.08.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 185 days. From document W-1 it comes out to be 231 days. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:—
Period of work Number of working days.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointment on daily wage on 8.6.03 & was terminated on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has also admitted that he has not field any document which can indicate that for how many days he has worked from 2003 to 2006. He has also alleged in page 3 of cross-examination that he has not filed any document which indicates that for how many days he has 19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003 28 days
13.4.2004 to 13.5.2004 26 days
9.6.2004 to 9.7.2004 26 days
13.9.2004 to 12.10.2004 26 days
14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 17 days
19.3.2005 to 13.4.2005 24 days
14.5.2005 to 29.8.2005 NIL
30.8.2005 to 7.9.2005 NIL
8.9.2005 to 6.10.2005 27 days
9.11.2005 to 9.12.2005 28 days
11.1.2006 to 10.2.2006 29 days
12.2.2006 to 14.3.2006 29 days
9.6.2006 to 6.7.2006 25 days
Total number of days between
30.8.2005 to 30.8.2006 138 days.
29. The above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates2724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 138 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross- examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned councel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the service of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:-
"25-F.Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until----
(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation (which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government ( or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. —For
the purposes of this Chapter----
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer.....
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than :
(i) one hundered and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)......... "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include.........
(a) Voluntary retrenchment of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concered on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ........ Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........................... To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2725 employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 day's average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking in to the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attaracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion. I am of the view that the applicant has not worked for more then 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.08.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce.........Appellant V/s. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....... Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122) ........... Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....... Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122) ...... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H and 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25- H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Surya Prakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India ......... Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney.......... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with2726 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India V/s. N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India V/s. N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of Issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ......... Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh..... Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
नई दिल्ली 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1302.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 46/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/32/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी. के. वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1302.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 46/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India Rajasthan and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/32/2007-IR-(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
"................ In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the Court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ......... Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh ......... Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 46/2007 Reference No. L-42012/32/2007-IR(DU) dated 23.7.2007
Sh. Hanuman Mali S/o Shri Sitaram Mali R/o 6 Ghar, Ramsingh Pura, Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Wahid Mohammed w.e.f. 30.08.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2727"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Hanuman Mali, w.e.f. 08.7.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.5.2003. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his services were terminated on 8.7.2006 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimization adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to none cooperation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed mor than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 8.7.2006 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only2728 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one month notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties :—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.2003 to 8.7.2006 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India...... Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney....Respondent.
ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s. Rajappa & others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629(Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & other....Respondents.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2729
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial
Tribunal, Delhi in I.d. No.78/84 in Workman through
the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor
Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General,
Archaeological Surveyof India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of
Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).
vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122)....Respondent.
the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim. 19. Before issue no.1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2,3, & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue no.1.
Issue no.2
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No.33/ 86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner v/s Union of India & other....Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.No.331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others...petitioners v/s Union of India & others .... Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B- 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work or repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job 20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no oppointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh Brijraj2730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue no. 4
Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. issue no.2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workman were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act. For convenience provision of Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H Re-employment of retrenched workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an oportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointment were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointment were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after has removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite part violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
24. This issue is to effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non- applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. Reliance has been placed by non-appliacant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non- applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & other etc.etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Ttibunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, In Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue no.4 that provision of I.D.Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue no.4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D.Act. apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D.Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen through the President,Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no.9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2731 that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue no.4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.03 to 8.7.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 8.7.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non-applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wages basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of non availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wages basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointted on daily wages on 25.5.03 & was terminated on 8.7.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work or for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 day in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proff lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 8.7.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has been mentioned that the nature work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relalting to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately proceding the date of termination on 8.7.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 8.7.05 to 8.7.06 comes out to be 220 days. From document w-1 it comes out to be 250 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has also appear from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following details:— Period of work Number of working days.
19.2.03 to 20.3.03 NIL
17.1.04 to 16.2.04 28
13.4.04 to 13.5.04 NIL
15.5.04 to 14.6.04 NIL
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 NIL
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 NIL
13.9.04 to 13.10.04 NIL
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 NIL
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 NIL
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 NIL2732 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 9.3.05 to 17.3.05 NIL
9.11.05 to 9.12.05 NIL
10.12.05 to 9.1.06 NIL
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 NIL
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 NIL
9.6.06 to 7.7.06 NIL
Total number of days between 8.7.2005 to 8.7.2006 NIL
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of terminationon 8.7.06 aplicant has worked only for Nil days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 8.7.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion its clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of terimiantion. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has contionously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no viloation of section 25-F of I.D.Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor termination & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman, employed in any Industry who has been in continous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuos service.———
For the purposes of this Chapter———
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuos sevrice under an employer———
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than———
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)——"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsover, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinay action but does not include——
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contained a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2733 under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 38, Surendrangar District Panchayat..................Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "................To attract provision of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer,and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of this Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less that one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulatiave. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that this service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three condiitons to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 8.7.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negataive against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce...Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajsthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).....Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25- H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the beneifts of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before2734 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they have employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act becasue violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only enegaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranager District Panchayat....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation of section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Hanuman Mali w.e.f. 8.7.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1303.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 47/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/25/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 47/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/25/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
".....In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entite the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat..... Appellant V/s Dahyabhai BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 47/2007 Reference No. L-42012/25/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.7.2007
Sh. Kamlesh Mali S/o Shri Kajor Mali R/o Village & Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2735 The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Kamlesh Mali, w.e.f. 30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?''
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 19.5.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his services were terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, henece, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labour has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for fixed work & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation2736 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of Indian is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 24 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 273715. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:-
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India...... Appellant v/s. N. Sundaramoney....Respondent.
ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s. A. Aajappa & others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629(Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & others....Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23). by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
19. Before issue no.1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue No.1.
Issue No. 2
vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)....Respondent.
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:-
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner v/s Union of India & others....Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No.331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others...petitioners v/s Union of India & others....Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B- 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service 20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:-
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been2738 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] filed in evidence indicates that new appointment were made with no preference to applicant but in cross-examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after has removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite part violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 4
named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
24. This issue is to effect that whether establishment of
the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an
Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act.
A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant
that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under
definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the
I.D.Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on
Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case
to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science),
engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch,
section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned
Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:- counsel for the applicant that establishment of non-
applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen— has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order
Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975,
purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A.
in such manner as may be prescribed, give an Rajappa & others etc.etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed
oportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens by Industrial Ttibunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen
of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor
such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological
re-employment shall have preference over other Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated
persons. 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court,
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a Kanpur, In Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy
Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of
retrench employee shall have preference in appointment
India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very
over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman &
carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.
the management is under an obligation to give opportunity
Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been
to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for
filed by opposite party.
employment. If opportunity is not given by management it
will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. para 14 25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central
of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur
services of applicant new appointments were made without in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s
preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science
statement of claim non-applicant has denied the Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the
appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4
about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2739
the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act. apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/ 84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No.9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No.1
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointment on daily wages on 25.5.03 & was terminated on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in satement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relalting to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately proceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 170 days. From document w-1 it comes out to be 233 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It has also appear from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wages basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal2740 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] passed on application of the applicant provides following details:—
Period of work Number of working days.
25.5.2003 to 24.6.2003 27
25.7.2003 to 24.8.2003 09
25.8.2003 to 1-9-2003 08
13.4.2004 to 12.5.2004 27
15.5.2004 to 14.6.2004 27
9.6.2004 to 9.7.2004 24
18.7.2004 to 27.7.2004 09
11.7.2004 to 10.8.2004 19
12.8.2004 to 11.9.2004 27
13.9.2004 to 12.10.2004 28
14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 16
1.11.2004 to 1.12.2004 26
3.12.2004 to 2.1.2005 27
4.1.2005 to 3.2.2005 28
6.2.2005 to 8.3.2005 28
9.3.2005 to17.3.2005 09
19.3.2005 to 13.4.2005 24
6.6.2005 to 6.7.2005 28
8.10.2005 to 7.11.2005 28
8.11.2005 to 8.12.2005 29
10.11.2005 to9.1.2006 28
11.1.2006 to 10.2.2006 29
12.2.2006 to 14.3.2006 28
9.6.2006 to 7.7.2006 28
Total number of days between
30.8.05 to 30.8.06 170 days.
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of terminationon 30.8.06 aplicant has worked only for 170 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.86. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately precedingthe date of termination. From the above discussion its clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked than 240 days immediately preceding the date of terimiantion. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has contionously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no viloation of section 25-F of I.D.Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor termination & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman, employed in any Industry who has been in continous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrench- ment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in ex- cess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuos service.———
For the purposes of this Chapter———
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuos sevrice under an employer———
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2741(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than———
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)——"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsover, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinay action but does not include——
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contained a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court cases (L&S) 38, Surendrangar District Panchayat..................Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "................To attract provision of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer,and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of this Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less that one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer, These conditions are cumulatiave. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that this service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three condiitons to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:-
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negataive against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce...Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from2742 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt was appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...Petitioner v/s Rajsthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).....Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are not dependent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re-employment. To derive the beneifts of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25- H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they have employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act becasue violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only enegaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranager District Panchayat....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation of section 25-G & section 25-H as under:-
".....In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entite the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat.....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Kamlesh Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1304.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 48/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/27/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2743 New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 48/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeologial Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2015.
[No. L-42012/27/2007-IR (DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer 3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.
I.D. 48/2007
Reference No. L-42012/30/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.07.2007
Sh. Mitha Lal Mali S/o Shri Sita Ram Mali R/o 6 Ghar, Ramsingh Pura Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
18.05.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Mitha Lal, w.e.f. 30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 19.08.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was no complaint by opposite party against his work.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back and due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.03.2006 to 08.06.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the2744 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management that he has not remained absent during above said period and instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service and he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract and such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact the document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman and employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman and the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days and the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution and they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure and selection is made out of person who posses the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work and nature of the work is purely temporary and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman authomatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 03.06.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated and statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 274512. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 19.8.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 24 page. This document has been filed on directionof tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...... Re- spondent.
(ii) Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil ap- peal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Sup- ply and Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa and others etc.etc.
(iii) 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & others......Respondents.
(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tri- bunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Ar- chaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce......Appellant v/s/ Presiding Officer, Cen- tral Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others (23).
(vi) RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)......Respondent.
(vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tri- bunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dis- pute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horti- culturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
(i) Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Admin- istrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and others......Petitioner v/s Union of India and others......Respondents.
(ii) Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Admin- istrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others......petitioners v/s Union of India and others......Respondents.
(iii) Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' and there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job and none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
2746 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important and having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman." 22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen——Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act, Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appoitments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross-examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointment & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 4
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed persons. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant an evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly 24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2747
Issue no. 1
I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue no. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue no. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. Act. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s. Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
26. This issue is to the effect that whether workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 19.8.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-H of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of non availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant . It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage on 19.8.03 & was terminated on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of secton 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work of the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The2748 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it comes out to be 233 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:—
8.11.05 to 8.12.05 30
10.12.05 to 9.1.06 28
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 29
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 27
Total number of days between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 143 days.
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 143 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
Period of work Number of working days
19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003 26
25.8.03 to 1.9.03 07
17.1.04 to 16.2.04 28
13.4.04 to 13.5.04 25
15.5.04 to 14.6.04 23
9.6.04 to 9.7.04 27
18.7.04 to 27.7.04 10
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 18
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 26
13.9.04 to 13.10.04 28
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
1.11.04 to 1.12.04 26
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 27
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 27
19.1.05 to 18.2.05 13
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 16
9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
19.3.05 to 13.4.05 24
6.6.05 to 6.7.05 27
7.10.05 to 6.11.05 29
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall been retrenched by that employer until:—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2749 completed year of continous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Oficial Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.— For
the purposes of this Chapter
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continous service under an employer:—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than:—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)-----------"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf: or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsing ....... Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been helf by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. The conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for rtrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.08.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce ........ Appellant v/s. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur2750 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ........Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s. Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, heance, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management has failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the trubunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ......Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. it has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will given a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....Appellent v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has ben held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted incase of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue no. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit of violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranager District Panchayat...Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
"..........In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2751 applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeolgical Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Mitha Lal w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F. 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate For the Non- Applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate
AWARD
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1305.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 49/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/26/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 49/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/26/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Laxmi Narayan, w.e.f. 30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 14.7.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 49/2007 Reference No. L42012/26/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007
Sh. Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Laddu Lal Mali R/o Village & Post Sherpur Khilchipur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman'& the opposite party is émployer' according to the definition of 'workman'& émployer' provided in Industrial Distputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his services were terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite paty in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of of Industrial Disputes Act, 1958. It has been further alleged2752 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination is has been denied that opposite party is Índustry' whithin the meaning of definition provided in of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an índustry' according to the definition of industry provided under of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the concilation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all party & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said tobe baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against par 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that even such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Agaisnt para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2753 was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, GobardhanLal Meena, v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an Índustry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties :—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 14.07.03 to 30.08.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen which is 22 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.......Appellant v/s Sundaramoney............ Respondent
ii Judgement and order dated 21.02.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa and others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari........Appellant v/s Delhi Administration and others..........Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (23).
vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma.........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)............Respondent.
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
the opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and others .............Petitioner v/s Union of India and others ................Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others ...........petitioners v/s Union of India and others ...........Respondents.
2754 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]iii. Award dated 18.01.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violdation section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job and none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been aruged that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From persusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him and he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicate of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijral Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 and 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important and having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched 2. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management inviolation of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen— Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2755 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw in inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided agains the applicant.
Issue No. 4
in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1998 passed by Industrial Tribunnal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunnal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue no. 1
24. This issue is to the effect what whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(J) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(J) of the I.D. Act. . Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case N. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that estalishment of non-applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 is civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeologicaly Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Thajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties, Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 14.7.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written arguments that applicant was not appointed by non- appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on vailability of work engagement is made 25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur2756 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision 28. Document regarding period & corresponding
of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It working days filed by management on order of the tribunal
has been alleged that in view of case of the applicant passed on application of the applicant provides following
covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act compliance detail:-
of provisions of section 25-F is not required. Period of work Number of working days.
19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003 27
27. According to statement of claim applicant was
appointed on daily wage on 14.7.03 & was terminated on 19.9.04 to 16.2.04 27
30.8.06 without notice or pay in liew of notice or 13.4.04 to 13.5.04 27
retrenchment compensation in violaiton of section 25-F of 15.5.04 to 8.6.04 21
I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during 9.6.04 to 9.7.04 28
employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.
18.7.04 to 27.7.04 10
About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 19
whatever work was assigned by the opposite party
applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged 12.8.04 to 11.9.04 26
that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix 13.9.04 to 12.10.04 26
period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for 14.10.04 to 31.10.04 16
more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in 1.11.04 to 1.12.04 27
evidence in support of above statement of claim the
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 28
applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 28
No other co-worker has been produced as witness in
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 27
evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In
written statement it has been specifically denied by 9.3.05 to 17.3.05 9
opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 19.3.05 to 13.4.05 24
days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant 6.6.05 to 6.7.05 27
has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj 8.11.05 to 8.12.05 29
Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that
10.12.05 to 9.1.06 27
the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 29
above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on
applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 12.2.06 to 14.3.06 27
days in a year immediately preceding the date of his 9.6.06 to 7.7.06 28
termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The Total number of days between
applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has 30.8.05 to 30.8.2006 140 days.
not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of
claim that for how many days he has worked in any 29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite
corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed party regarding statement of work done by workman
document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06
for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been applicant has worked only for 140 days in a year
mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06.
work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear Thus it is evident that the workman has not worked
continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date
that two documents relating to total number of days of
of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that
work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2.
applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more
W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by
than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination.
workmen whereas W-1 is the document which appears to
From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there
be reply submitted by management during conciliation
appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he
proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration
has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the
for claculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding
date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear
the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of
that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously
days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05
worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately
to 30.8.06 comes out to be 140 days. From document W-1 it
preceding the date of his termination.
comes out to be 205 days but lacks continuity. Thus,
workman has failed to prove that he has continuously
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of
worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the
preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear learned counsel for the applicant that there has been
from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the
continuous work in the year. applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2757
party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because has was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:-
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until---
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government ( or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as under:-
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. --
---For the purposes of this Chapter----
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer---
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than----
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:-
"2(oo)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include----
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of Superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat....Appellant v/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:-
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
2758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)](iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hob'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-F & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25- G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......Appellant v/s Sundaramoney......Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38,[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2759 Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:-
workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/28/2007-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY,
PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 50/2007
"..................In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat............Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Laxmi Narayan w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
Reference No. L-42012/28/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007
Sh. Babulal Mali S/o Shri Sitaram Mali R/o 6 Ghar , Ramsingh Pura, Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Adovcate. For the Non- : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Adovcate Applicant
AWARD
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1306.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 50/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/28/2007-आईआर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 50/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Babu Lal, w.e.f. 30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 14.7.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for2760 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman'& the opposite party is émployer' according to the definition of 'workman'& émployer' provided in Industrial Distputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his service were terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violaion of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite paty in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of of Industrial Disputes Act, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination is has been denied that opposite party is Índustry' whithin the meaning of definition provided in of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an índustry' according to the definition of industry provided under of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the concilation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all party & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said tobe baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against par 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that even such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2761 new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, GobardhanLal Meena, v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an Índustry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated state. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided also with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 14.07.03 to 30.08.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney ............ Respondent
ii Judgement and order dated 21.02.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-54(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa and others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari........Appellant v/s Delhi Administration and others..........Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others (23).
vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma.........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)............Respondent.
2762 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Issue No. 2
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
the opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Admin- istrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and others ............. Petitioner v/s Union of India and others ................ Respon- dents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Admin- istrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others ........... petitioners v/s Union of India and others ........... Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.01.2001 passed by Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violdation section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job and none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been aruged that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From persusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant and junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him and he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicate of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 and 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important and having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
2. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2763 engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw in inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided agains the applicant.
Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that estalishment of non-applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 is civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Thajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties, Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
Issue No. 4
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunnal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
24. This issue is to the effect what whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, 26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 14.7.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of2764 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workmen whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document W-2 it taken into consideration for claculating the period fo 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on whcih the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it comes out to be 179 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:—
his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
Period of work Number of working days.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was
appointed on daily wage on 14.7.03 & was terminated on 9.9.04 to 30.9.04 12
30.8.06 without notice or pay in liew of notice or
retrenchment compensation in violaiton of section 25-F of 14.10.04 to 31.10.04 11
I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during 1.11.04 to 28.11.04 25
employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.
About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that 3.12.04 to 2.1.05 27
whatever work was assigned by the opposite party 4.1.05 to 3.2.05 31
applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged
that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix 6.2.05 to 8.3.05 26
period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for 9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in
evidence in support of above statement of claim the 19.3.05 to 13.4.05 24
applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. 15.2.05 to 17.3.05 NIL
No other co-worker has been produced as witness in
evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In 5.5.05 to 4.6.05 28
written statement it has been specifically denied by 6.6.05 to 6.7.05 13
opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240
8.10.05 to 7.11.05 28
days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant
has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj 9.11.05 to 9.12.05 30
Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that 11.12.05 to 10.1.06 28
the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 29
above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on
applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 12.2.06 to 14.3.06 28
days in a year immediately preceding the date of his 9.6.06 to 7.7.06 27
termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The
applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has Total number of days between
not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 170 days.
claim that for how many days he has worked in any
corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2765 indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 170 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to device in favours of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because has was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government ( or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. -----For
the purposes of this Chapter—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period of he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
32. Section 2 (00) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:-
"2(00)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of Superannuation if the contract of employment be- tween the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health.
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat....Appellant v/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is2766 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the pre-
scribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hob'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).....Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-F & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent No. 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave.
The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25- G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was followed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney......Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2767 Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1307.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 51/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/29/2007-आईआर (डी यू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 51/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/29/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
"..................In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat............Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 51/2007 Reference NO. L-42012/29/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007
Sh. Bhagchand Mali S/o Shri Morpal Mali R/o Village & Post Sherpur, Khilchipur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Bieg, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Babu Lal w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1& 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred2768 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Bhagchand Mali, w.e.f. 30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 9.8.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his services were terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of this services does not arise. It has been[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2769 alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more that 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, It has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 9.8.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishement is an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 18 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of Learned Counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
2770 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.....Appellant v/s. Sundaramoney.....Respondent.
ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari....Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & others.......Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Triunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce....Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).
vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122)..........Respondent. within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by Learned Counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of section 25-F,G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the all wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra vs Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:-
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others .....Petitioner vs Union of India & others......Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others..... petitioners vs Union of India & others...... Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena vs Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F,25-G &25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' 20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Idnstrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:-
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provison contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the timeof his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to the applicant who was retained in the service at the time[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2771 admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detial of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. He cross- examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act..Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 if accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 4
of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by Learned Counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross-examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D.Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H4 is reproduced below which reads as under:-
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen.— Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant field in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also 24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishemnt of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in sectin 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Indsutrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/ 97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena vs Director (Science), Archeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Dehradun. Against this, it has been argued by Learned Counsel for applicant that establishemnt of non-applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(Y) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc vs Rajappa & Others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi vs The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India,Tajmahal Agra vs Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena vs Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Dehradun, cited by Learned Counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of Indian is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.
2772 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi vs The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc vs A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s. Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No.4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
30.08.2006 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of
I.D. Act.What was the post held by the applicant during
employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.
About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that
whatever work was assigned by the opposite party
applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged
that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix
period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for
more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in
evidence in support of above statement of claim the
applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.
No other co-worker has been produced as witness in
evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In
written statement it has been specifically denied by
opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240
days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant
has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj
Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that
the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In Issue No.1
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 19.08.2003 to 30.08.2006 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.08.2006 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage 09.08.2003 & was terminated on above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on
applicant to prove that he has worked for mroe than 240
days in a year immediately preceding the date of his
termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The
applicant has alleged in his cross-examination that he has
not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of
claim that for how many days he has worked in any
corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed
document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned
for which he was engaged & in W-1 it has also been
mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair
work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear
that two documents relating to total number of days of
work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2.
W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by
workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to
be reply submitted by management during conciliation
proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration
for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding
the date of termination on 30.08.2006 then total number of
days on which the workman has worked between 30.08.2005
to 30.08.2006 comes out to be 104 days. From document w-
1 it comes out to be 120 days but lacks continuity. Thus,
workman has failed to prove that he has continuously
worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately
preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear
from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no
continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding
working days filed by management on order of the tribunal[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2773 passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:-
Period of work Number of working days.
19.2.2003 to 20.3.2003 28 days
25.7.03 to 24.8.03 09
25.8.03 to 1.9.03 08
19.1.04 to 16.2.04 29
13.4.04 to 13.5.04 27
15.5.04 to 14.6.04 22
9.6.04 to 9.7.04 27
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 29
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 27
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
1.11.04 to 28.11.04 25
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 28
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 27
6.6.05 to 6.7.05 27
8.11.05 to 8.12.05 28
11.12.05 to 10.1.06 27
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 25
9.6.06 to 10.7.06 24
Total number of days between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 104 days.
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 3.8.06 applicant has worked only for 104 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.08.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counself for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expire, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.—For
the purposes of this Chapter:—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer:—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than:—
(i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and2774 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
''2(oo)—'retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat.... Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, taking together and analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B and section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent of 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 and his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G and 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce.........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others and RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...... Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122).......... Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oirental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only and his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G and 25-H which was referred for adjudication After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G and section 25-H hence, respondent was directedd to be reinstated and it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool and Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G and 25-H. Petition. against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court and award of the tribunal was confirmed.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 277537. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma.....Petitioner v/s Rajathan Text Book Board, Jaipur and others (122).......... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H and 25-F are independent of each other and section 25-G and 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G and 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other and mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages and re-employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary and workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days and was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25- H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 and 78. The caswe of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner of 1.11.88 they had employed few perons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his jurior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.......Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein, It is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue no.2 and 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G and 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on recrod that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant and he was only engaged casually as and when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L and S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G and section 25-H as under:—
............In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved". Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Casess (L and S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .....Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....Respondent, is relevant and applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 and from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim and action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Bhagchand Mali w.e.f. 30.8.6 without following the provisions of section 25F, 25-G and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1308.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 52/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/30/2007-आईआर(डीयू)]
पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 52/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2015.
[No. L-42012/30/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer2776 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 52/2007 Reference No. L-42012/30/2007-IR (DU) dated 23.07.2007
Sh. Radhye Shyam Mali S/o Shri Korya Mali R/o Allamur, Tehsil Khandar, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
For the Applicant : Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.
AWARD
18.05.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 and 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Radhye Shyam Mali, w.e.f. 30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 09.09.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any 4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back and due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.03.2006 to 08.06.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period and instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service and he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.08.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the statement of claim[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2777 have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract and such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact the document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman and employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman and the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days and the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution and they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure and selection is made out of person who posses the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grande 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work and nature of the work is purely temporary and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman authomatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 03.06.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated and statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post.
Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 9.9.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the2778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 24 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
(i) 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State bank of India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney...... Respondent.
(ii) Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa and others etc.etc.
(iii) 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & others......Respondents.
(iv) Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
(v) RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce......Appellant v/s/ Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others (23).
(vi) RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)......Respondent. (vii) Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
(i) Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and others......Petitioner v/s Union of India and others......Respondents.
(ii) Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and others......petitioners v/s Union of India and others......Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' and there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair and soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job and none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2779
Issue No. 3
these issues are important and having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen— Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act, Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appoitments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointment & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue no. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue no. 4
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed persons. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant an evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant frofm employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government2780 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue no. 1
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
26. This issue is to the effect that whether workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 9.9.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-H of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of non availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant . It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage on 9.9.03 & was terminated on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of secton 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work of the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case no. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue no. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue no. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. Act. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2781days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 169 days. From document w-1 it comes out to be 219 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on applicant of the applicant provides following detail:— Period of work Number of working days
19.2.03 to 20.3.03 26
17.1.04 to 16.2.04 29
13.4.04 to 13.5.04 27
15.4.04 to 14.6.04 28
9.6.04 to 9.7.04 23
18.7.04 to 27.7.04 10
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 19
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 27
13.9.04 to 13.10.04 27
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
1.11.04 to 1.12.04 26
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 27
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 27
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 27
9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
15.2.05 to 17.3.05 12
6.6.05 to 6.7.05 28
7.7.05 to 7.8.05 27
8.9.05 to 6.10.05 27
8.11.05 to 8.12.05 29
10.12.05 to 9.1.06 27
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 29
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 29
9.6.06 to 7.7.06 28
Total number of days between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 169 days.
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 169 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to dervie in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.— No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall been retrenched by that employer until:—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and2782 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Oficial Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.— For
the purposes of this Chapter—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continous service under an employer:—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than:—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundered and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)-----------"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include---------
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf: or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-helath;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .......Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh ....... Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............. To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for rtrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.08.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce ........ Appellant v/s. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ........Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2783Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s. Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.55.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management has failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to he respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the trubunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma ......Petitioner v/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G & 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25- H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will given a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India....Appellent v/s N. Sundaramoney...Respondent, it has ben held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted incase of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue no. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit of violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hob'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranager District Panchayat...Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
"..........In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employes engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non- compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat .....appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.....Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeolgical Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Radhye Shyam Mali w.e.f.
2784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]AWARD
30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25- F. 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1309.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 53/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/31/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]
पी॰के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1309.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubished the award (I.D. No. 53/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/31/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:-
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeoligical Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Ram Prasad Mali, w.e.f 30.8.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.5.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly & there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work has assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved apainst him.
ANNEXURE
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing & the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' & the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' & employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination & his services were terminated on 30.8.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER
I.D. 53/2007 Reference No. L42012/31/2007-IR(DU) dated: 23.7.2007
Sh. Ram Prasad Mali S/o Shri Ghasi Lal Mali R/o Village & Post Sherpur, Khilchipur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate.
For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate. 4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co-operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2785 employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1957. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show-cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry.
Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services authomatically came to an end. It was not necessary to given notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution & they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other terchnical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is doen by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within2786 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.2003 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non- applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 26 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.........Appellant V/s N. Sundaramoney........ Respondent.
ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(I) of 1975, Banglore Water supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc. V/s A. Rajappa & Others etc. etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant v/s Delhi Administration & other...Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce...Appellant V/s President Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).
vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma....Petitioner V/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)....Respondent.
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner V/s Union of India & others....Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi singh &others....petitioners V/s Union of India & others....Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur of CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2787 of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of section 25-F G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Supertintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross-examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.—Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From persual of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in 22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act. For convenience provision of Section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen— Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any person he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of the India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference is appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the managemt is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were2788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross- examination of Sh. Brijraj singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 4
the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(i) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant. Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishement of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Aganist this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New ``Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to 26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.5.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant was not appointed by none- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of non availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2789Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required. passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:—
Period of work Number of working days
19.2.03 to 20.3.03 26
25.5.03 to 24.6.03 30
25.7.03 to 24.8.03 09
25.8.03 to 1.9.03 08
17.1.04 to 16.2.04 28
13.4.04 to 13.5.04 26
15.5.04 to 14.6.04 22
9.6.04 to 9.7.04 28
18.7.04 to 27.7.04 10
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 19
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 27
13.9.04 to 13.1.04 28
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
1.11.04 to 1.12.04 26
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 28
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 28
19.1.05 to 18.2.05 13
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 15
9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
19.3.05 to 13.4.05 24
6.6.05 to 6.7.05 28
8.10.05 to 7.11.05 28
9.11.05 to 9.12.05 27
11.12.05 to 10.1.06 29
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 27
9.6.06 to 7.7.06 28
Total number of days between
30.8.05 to 30.8.06 139 days 27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage on 25.5.03 & was terminated on 30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he was worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is w-1 & w-2, W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 139 days. From document w-1 it comes out to be 231 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicate that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 139 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the2790 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-----------
(a) the workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service---
----For the purposes of this Chapter—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer.............
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than.................
(i) one hundred any ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other
case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under: —
"2(oo)............"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsosever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include.............
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat...............Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh....................Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "............................... To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2791 with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calender year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Indstrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce...............Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma...............Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)...............Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce V/s. Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 2.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who on leave in whose place respondent was emplyed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma.............Petitioner V/s. Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re-employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitoner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25- H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitoner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of Inda.........Appellant V/s. N. Sundaramoney.............. Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the presnet case.
39. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority2792 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as and when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat.................Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh..............Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 54/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.06.2015.
[No. L-42012/33/2007-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer
I.D. 54/2007
"..........................In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ......Appellant V/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh.......... Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
Reference No. L-42012/33/2007-IR(DU) dated 23.07.2007
Shri Prabhu Lal Mali S/o Shri Morpal Mali R/o Village and Post Sherpur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India, Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Shri M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Shri T.P. Sharma, Advocate.
AWARD
40. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Ram Prasad Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 is legal & justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1310.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया, राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 54/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24.06.2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/33/2007-आईआर(डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
18.05.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 and 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeologial Survey of India, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Prabhu Lal Mali, w.e.f. 30.08.2006, without following the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.03.03. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2793 that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 30.08.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchement compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back & due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work & work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer & workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party in 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities & work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence the termination of the services of the workman is illegal & unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period & instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service & he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 30.8.06 be declared illegal & applicant reinstated with all pay & emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party & he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract & such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year & applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless & nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works & his services were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman & employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim & has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman & the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently & he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party & the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days & the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that even such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for2794 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] its execution and they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work & nature of the work is purely temporary & casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated & statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time & he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1). Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.3.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2). At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act/
(3). Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4). Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document w-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant & other workmen which is 28 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both the parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.....Appellant V/s N. Sundaramoney ...... Respondent.
ii. Judgenent & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753 - 754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc V/s A. Rajappa & other etc.etc
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C 1629 (Supreme Court ), D.P. Maheshwari...Appellant V/s Delhi Administration & others......Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No.78/84 in workmen through the president,Archeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archealogical Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce.....Appellant V/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others (23).
vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench,Surya Prakash Sharma ....... Petitioner V/s Rajasthan Text book Board, Jaipur & Others (122)....... Respondent.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2795Issue No. 2
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Awarded dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others .....Petitioner V/s Union of India & others............Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & Others......petitioners V/s Union of India & Others..........Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of sections 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2,3, & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial estabilishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at that time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Basis on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
2796 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Issue No. 3
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment, shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have reference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by mangement it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
Issue No. 4
24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under 25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survery of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute no. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2797 Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.3.03 to 30.8.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of termporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 30.8.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document W-1 & in W-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & W-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in W-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which is W-1 & W-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas W-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document W-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06 comes out to be 171 days. From document W-1 it comes out to be 206 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents W-1 & W-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following details:—
Period of work Number of working days
27. According to statement of claim applicant was
appointed on daily wage on 25.3.03 & was terminated on
30.8.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or 25.5.03 to 24.6.03 31
retrenchement compensation in violation of section 25-F 25.7.03 to 24.8.03 09
of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during
25.8.03 to 1.9.03 08
employment has not been alleged in statement of claim.
About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that 17.1.04 to 16.2.04 27
whatever work was assigned by the opposite party 13.4.04 to 13.5.04 27
applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged
15.5.04 to 14.6.04 22
that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix
period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for 9.6.04 to 9.7.04 28
more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in 18.7.04 to 27.7.04 09
evidence in support of above statement of claim the
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 18
applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim.
No other co-worker has been produced as witness in 12.8.04 to 11.9.04 27
evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In 13.9.04 to 13.10.04 28
written statement it has been specifically denied by
14.10.04 to 31.10.04 17
opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240
days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant 1.11.04 to 1.12.04 26
has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj 3.12.04 to 2.1.05 27
Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 28
the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In
above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on 19.1.05 to 18.2.05 12
2798 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 16
15.2.05 to 17.3.05 12
9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
19.3.05 to 13.4.05 23
6.6.05 to 6.7.05 27
7.7.05 to 7.8.05 27
8.10.05 to 7.11.05 29
8.11.05 to 8.12.05 29
10.12.05 to 9.1.06 28
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 29
12.2.06 to 14.3.06 29
9.6.06 to 7.7.06 28
Total number of days 172 days. between 30.8.05 to 30.8.06
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 30.8.06 applicant has worked only for 172 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 30.8.06. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1)(ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service.—For
the purposes of this Chapter—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not a continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)—"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but doe snot include—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2799 between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ........ Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "...................... To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
34. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 30.8.06 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
35. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce.....Appellant V/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma .....Petitioner V/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & other (122).........Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
36. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, Hence this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court and award of the tribunal was confirmed.
37. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bengh, Surya Prakash Sharma......Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)..........Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other and section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule 76 to 78 of Indusrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other and2800 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages and re-employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days and was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 and 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
38. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.......Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s/ N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
39. From decision of issue no 2 and 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as and when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ........Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh...... Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ....... Apellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh....... Respondent, is relevant and applies to the case of applicant.
40. Bases on the findings related to issue no. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim and action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Prabhu Lal Mali w.e.f. 30.8.06 without following the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified.
41. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1311.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 68/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं॰ एल-42012/44/2007-आईआर (डीयू)]] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 68/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42012/44/2007-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer
I.D. 68/2007
".................In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was Reference No. L-42012/44/2007-IR(DU) dated: 9.10.2007[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2801 Sh. Omar Din S/o Shri Ramjani Shah R/o Village & Post Sherpur Khilchipur, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate
AWARD
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India, Ranthambhore, in terminating the services of their workman Shri Omar Din, w.e.f. 15.3.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 11.9.03 on the post of Masson. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was no complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice & no charge was ever proved against him.
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and the opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' & 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 15.3.06 without giving any notice or any payment in liew of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice & victimisation adopted by opposite party.
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen junior to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Dispputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 & Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back and due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work and work was taken from him, hence, the relation of employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities and work the opposite party is an 'Industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not been followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unfair.
5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is that the applicant workman was absent from duty from 11.1.06 to 4.2.06 but workman was not given any show-cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period and instead of absence he has been working in that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service and he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi-permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 15.3.06 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract and such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has also been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year and applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless and nature2802 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his service were coming to end after completion of the work. Relation between applicant and opposite party as workman and employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman and the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days and the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution and they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure and selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work and nature of the work is purely temporary and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derive benefit provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The allegation of the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been prayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reiterated and statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/ 97, Gobardhan Lal Meena V/s. Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entitled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at belated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
12. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of both the parties:—
(1) whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 11.9.03 to 15.3.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and whose service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the junior persons to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'Industry'
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D. Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in claendar year 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006. Applicant has been cross-examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2803 which is 17 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross-examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for both parties & perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India........ Appellant V/s. N. Sundarmoney ........ Respondent.
ii. Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No.753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s. A. Rajappa & others etc. etc.
iii. 1893 LAB.I.C. 1629 (Supreme Court), D. P. Maheshwari... Applicant V/s. Delhi Adminstration & Others.......Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce........Appellant V/s. Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others (23).
vi. RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma..........Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)..........Respondent. Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s. Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of sections 25-F, 25-G & 25- H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' & there is no violation of section 25-F, G & H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that this engagement was on daily wage & as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account of end of job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision beause decision of these issues are important & having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra V/s. Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar and Others .......... Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Others ........... Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh and Others..............Petitioners V/s. Union of India and Others..............Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the service of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman."
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a2804 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on record about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross- examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit & statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointment & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross- examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing signifacnt to draw an inference about violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion & appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regarding appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue no. 4
peson other than the last employed person. From perusal of statement of claim it is evident that in parta 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industiral Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affidavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of person junior to him was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross-examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him & he has alleged that when he was removed at the time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross-examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained & removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the perusal of the cross-examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross-examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H is reporduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any persons he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment, and such retrenched workmen, who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishment of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaning of section(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant that establishment of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2 (j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Seience Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment of non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.etc. v/s A. Rajappa & Others etc.etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi & Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by the opposite party.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur 23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman & the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act. Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2805 is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Bench, Deharadun, cited by learned counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A. Rajappa & others etc.etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry". In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Suresh Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue No. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue No. 1
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage on 11.9.03 & was terminated on 15.3.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that his engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant has worked for more than 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination on 15.03.2006 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which in w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the document which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the document which appears to be reply submitted by management during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination on 15.03.2006 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between 15.03.2005 to 15.03.2006 comes out to be 115 days. From document w-1 it comes out to be 144 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the document w-1 & w-2 that there is not continuous work in the year.
26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 11.9.03 to 15.3.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of termination on 15.3.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature. It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement2806 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 28. Document regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant provides following detail:—
Period of work Number of working days
19.02.2003 to 20.03.2003 24
17.01.2004 to 18.02.2004 28
15.05.2004 to 14.06.2004 27
11.07.2004 to 10.08.2004 28
12.08.2004 to 11.09.2004 21
13.09.2004 to 13.10.2004 22
14.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 16
1.11.2004 to 01.12.2004 24
3.12.2004 to 02.01.2005 26
4.1.2005 to 03.02.2005 26
19.01.2005 to 18.02.2005 09
09.03.2005 to 17.03.2005 08
15.02.2005 to 17.03.2005 09
07.10.2005 to 06.11.2005 26
09.11.2005 to 09.12.2005 26
11.12.2005 to 10.01.2006 27
12.02.2006 to 14.03.2006 30
Total number of days between 15.3.05 to 15.3.06 128 days.
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 15.03.2006 applicant has worked only for 128 days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 15.03.2006. Thus, it is evident that the workman has nor worked continuously for 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against the learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D.Act and section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period and specific work and he has left the workplace on his own accord. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment and there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under as employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:—
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment compensation shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B (1) (ii) which reads as under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service. ........ For
the purposes of this Chapter:—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer:—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, druing a period to twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than:—
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2807(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case:
32. Section 2(oo) provides meaning of retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)—"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include:—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-nenewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health.
33. About appointment of applicant in the department of opposite party it is pertinent to mention that applicant has admitted in his cross-examination that there was neither advertisement for appointment nor applicant had submitted any application for appointment, hence, statement of applicant in his statement of claim and afidavit that he was appointed by the opposite party on a particular date is baseless and wrong. Thus, question of his appointment & termination does not arise and contention of the opposite party that applicant was not appointed by the opposite party appears to be correct.
34. In 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat............ Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh ......... Respondent, taking together and analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B and section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "........... To attract provisions of Section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:—
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
35. Looking into the above provisions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove the he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant has not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 15.03.2006 and his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
36. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G and 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce.......Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal and others and RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma..............Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur and other (122)..........Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G and 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
37. In case of of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent No. 2 was employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & his engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was2808 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respondent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tirbunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
38. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma..... Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25- H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not. It has been further held that rule76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these ruels continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefitws of Rule 76 to78. In this case petitioner Sh. Suryaprakash Sharma was retrenched from service before compeltion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11. 88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharged on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
39. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India.... Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney.... Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25- B( 2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon' Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
40. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there ws existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filling any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat.... Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.... Respondenet, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
"...... In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat... Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh.... Respondent, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
42. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussion as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the service of the workman Sh. Omar Din w.e.f. 15.3.06 is legal & justified.
42. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
का.आ. 1312.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धरा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ़ इंडिया राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 69/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42012/45/2007-आईआर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2809 New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby published the award (I.D. No. 69/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Archaeological Survey of India, Rajasthan and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24.6.2015.
[No. L-42012/45/2007-IR(DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer of his ability. Applicant was never served with any notice and no charge was ever proved against him.
ANNEXURE
3. He was appointed on daily wage but his period of appointment or nature of work was not fixed. The work for which he was appointed by opposite party is still existing and the nature of work is permanent. The applicant is 'workman' and opposite party is 'employer' according to the definition of 'workman' and 'employer' provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. the applicant had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination and his services were terminated on 8.7.06 without giving any notice or any payment in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His termination is unfair labour practice and victimisation adopted by opposite party.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Bharat Pandey, Presiding Officer
I.D. 69/2007
Reference No. L-42012/45/2007-IR(DU) dated: 8.10.2007
Sh./ Kamlesh Mali S/o Shri Hazari Mali R/o village & Post Sherpur Khilchipur, Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Regional Officer Archaeological Survey of India Ranthambhor Durg, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan).
For the Applicant : Sh. M.F. Beig, Advocate. For the Non-applicant : Sh. T.P. Sharma, Advocate
AWARD
18.5.2015
1. The Central Government in excercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Secton 1 & 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
4. Before the termination of the workman seniority list was neither prepared nor published by the opposite party which is violation of Rule 77 of Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958. At the time of termination of the service workmen juniror to the applicant were retained in service by the opposite party in violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The opposite party has made new appointment after termination of the services of the applicant workman but no priority was given to the applicant which is violation of section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947and Rule 78 of Industrial Disputes Rule, 1958. It has been further alleged by the applicant that applicant requested the opposite party to take the applicant in his employment but he was not taken back and due to non co- operation of opposite party conciliation also failed before the Conciliation Officer. The opposite party has accepted before the Conciliation Officer that applicant was kept on work and work was taken from him, hence the relation of employer and workman has not been denied by the opposite party but to escape from the liability of illegal termination it has been denied that opposite party is 'Industry' within the meaning of definition provided in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The true position is that according to the activities and work the opposite party is an 'industry' according to the definition of industry provided under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Inddustrial Disputes Act, 1947 have not ben followed by opposite party, hence, the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and unfair.
"Whether the action of the management of
Archaeological Survey of India, Ranthambhore, in
terminating the services of their workman Shri
Kamlesh Mali, w.e.f. 8.7.2006 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The fact of the case in brief is that the applicant workman was appointed as daily wager on 25.9.03 on the post of masson. He was discharging his duty since appointment honestly and there was not complaint by opposite party against his work. Whatever work was assigned to the applicant he completed that work to best 5. It has been further alleged that allegation of the opposite party before the Conciliation Officer is the applicant workman was absent from duty from 15.3.2006 to 8.6.2006 but workman was not given any show-cause notice. Neither any charge sheet was served upon him regarding absence from place of duty nor any charge was proved. The applicant had made his stand clear before the management that he has not remained absent during above said period and instead of absence he has been working in2810 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] that period. The applicant had completed more than two years of service and he was demanding from the opposite party to declare him semi permanent employee. As a result of above demand of the applicant the opposite party instead of making him semi permanent terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant is jobless since the date of termination. It is, therefore, requested that termination order dated 8.7.2006 be declared illegal and applicant reinstated with all pay and emoluments along with continuity in service.
6. In reply statement in para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 of the statement of claim have been specifically denied. In additional reply it has been alleged in para 2 that the applicant labourer was not appointed by the opposite party and he was engaged as casual labourer for carrying out casual work on the basis of part time contract and such engagement was coming to end immediately after completion of the work. It has been alleged that the applicant labourer has never completed 240 days in any year and the applicant is under an obligation to prove this fact by document. Statement of para 5 of statement of claim has been said to be baseless nature of the work for which applicant was engaged is alleged to be casual. Against para 7 it has been alleged that to succeed in his sinister design applicant has fabricated the statement.
7. It has been alleged against para 8 of the statement of claim that applicant was called for a fixed works and his services were coming to end after completion of the work, Relation between applicant & opposite party as workman and employer has been specifically denied against para 9 of the statement of claim and has been alleged that since he was never appointed the question of such relationship does not arise. The applicant does not fall within the definition of workman and the department of the opposite party does not fall within the definition of Industry. Applicant was never engaged permanently and he was called only when there was work. He was neither appointed on any post after following the rules of appointment nor any appointment letter was issued to him, therefore, question of termination of his services does not arise. It has been alleged in para 11 of reply that it is pertinent to note that applicant was not removed from the institution of opposite party and the fact is that the work was over hence, his services automatically came to an end \. It was not necessary to give notice to the applicant because such notice is issued only to such workman who permanently work for a period of more than 240 days and the department is not satisfied with work of such workman, in that event such workman may be removed after serving one months notice. In case of applicant after completion of work he himself had gone elsewhere.
8. Against para 13 of statement of claim it has been alleged that workmen like applicant are not given any appointment letter neither they are deemed regular workmen of the department. Workman like applicant are engaged on daily wage basis according to need of a particular work for its execution and they are removed after completion of work or at the end of financial year or on other technical ground on suspension or stoppage of work. Against para 14 of statement of claim it has been alleged that nature of the new recruitment by the department whose nature is permanent is done by following the legal procedure & selection is made out of person who possess the prescribed eligibility. Applicant was not appointed on any vacant post under grade 'D'. At the time of engaging the applicant workman he was briefed orally that he is engaged against a specific work and nature of the work is purely termporary and casual in which applicant is not entitled to derice benefit of provisions of Industrial Disputes. Act. The allegationof the applicant is wrong that he was removed out of animosity. In absence of casual work the services of the workman automatically comes to an end. In last paragraph of the reply it has been parayed that order of dismissal be passed against the statement of claim.
9. In rejoinder dated 3.6.2010 filed by applicant, statement of claim has been reitereated and statement of reply submitted by the opposite party has been alleged to be wrong.
10. In preliminary objection against statement of claim filed by opposite party it has been alleged that applicant was neither given any appointment nor there was any sanctioned or vacant post. Department of the opposite party is not covered within the definition of industry as provided in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act. In B-40/97, Gobardhan Lal Meena v/s Archaeological Survey of India, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its award dated 18.1.2001 that Archaeological Survey of India is not covered within the definition of industry. Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur in its award dated 9.6.2003 has held that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) if Industrial Disputes Act. It has also been alleged that the applicant was engaged for completion of casual work for fixed period of time and he has not worked for 240 days in any of the year, hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Dispute Act. It has been alleged that the applicant left the work on his own even before the completion of the work, hence, he is not entiled to any relief.
11. Against preliminary objection it has been alleged by the applicant that preliminary objections are not tenable at delated stage. It has also been alleged that various precedents it has been alleged that preliminary objections are to be decided along with other issues on merits. It has also been alleged that preliminary objections are evidence based, hence, opposite party be directed to file the reply to the statement of claim.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 281112. Under mentioned issues were framed on 27.7.2011 by the then learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, based on pleadings of bother parties:—
(1) Whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.9.2003 to 8.7.2006 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and who service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act?
(2) At the time of terminating the service of the workman the juniors person to him were retained by the management in contravention of section 25-G of the I.D. Act?
(3) Whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh hands were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D.Act?
(4) Whether non-applicant establishment is an 'industry
within the meaning of section 2-J of the I.D.Act?
13. Applicant has filed document W-1 which is reply of opposite party before conciliation proceeding, affidavit of the applicant in evidence and statement of number of working days in calender year 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Applicant has been cross examination by opposite party on his affidavit.
14. In documentary evidence, opposite party has filed statement of payment made to applicant and other workmen which is 21 page. This document has been filed on direction of tribunal given on application of the applicant. Opposite aprty has filed affidavit of Sh. Brijraj Singh in evidence. Sh. Brijraj Singh has been cross examined on 28.10.14 by applicant side.
15. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for bother the parties and perused the file. Written argument have been filed by both the parties which is on record.
16. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
applicant:—
i. 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India......Applellant v/s N. Sundaramoney ........ Respondent.
ii. Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal no. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc v/s A Rajappa & other etc.etc.
iii. 1983 LAB.I.C. 1929 (Superme Court), D.P. Maheshwar .....Appellant v/s Delhi Administration and others ..........Respondents.
iv. Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi v/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi.
v. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce ..........Appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others(23).
vi. RLR 1991(2), Jaipur bench, Surya Prakash Sharma.....Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122).....Respondent.
vii. Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra V/s Suresh Chandra.
17. Following citations have been referred on behalf of
opposite party:—
i. Award dated 26.11.1986 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in O.A.No. 33/86, Govind Kanji Parmar & others....Petitioner V/s Union of India & others....Respondents.
ii. Award dated 30.10.1996 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A.No. 331 to 334/1993, Devi Singh & others... Petitioners v/s Union of India and others .... Respondents.
iii. Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No.B. 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun.
18. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has completed continuous 240 days of service in every year but he has removed from service by opposite party in violation of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that contention of the opposite party is against the law that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Act. Against this it has been argued by learned consel for the opposite party that Archaeological Survey of India is not an 'Industry' and there is no violation of section 25-F, G and H of the Act. It has also been argued that applicant was neither appointed nor any appointment letter was issued. There was no advertisement for recruitment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on part time contract for casual work of repair & soon after completion of the work engagement of the applicant was over. It has also been alleged that his engagement was on daily wage and as the work of repair of the wall was of temporary character hence, on account, of the job & none availability of further job the applicant himself had left the place of job. It has also been argued that whenever there is availability of work, workmen are engaged on daily wage basis for the job. Reference has been made by both the parties towards precedents submitted by them in favour of their respective claim.
2812 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]of section 25-G of the I.D. Act. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
Issue No. 3
19. Before issue No. 1 is decided it appears desirable to take up issues 2, 3 & 4 for decision because decision of these issues are important and having relevance in decision of issue No. 1.
Issue No. 2
20. This issue relates to violation of section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of applicant. Section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under:—
"Section 25-G. Procedure for retrenchment.— Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer, shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman." 22. This issue is to the effect that whether subsequent to the termination of the workman fresh workmen were engaged by the non-applicant management in violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act. For convenience provision of section 25-H is reproduced below which reads as under:—
"Sec. 25-H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen—Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer purposes to take into his employ any person he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment, and such retrenched workmen, who officer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
23. The above mentioned section 25-H provides that a retrench employee shall have preference in appointment over rest, if management, intends to employ a workman and the management is under an obligation to give opportunity to retrench workman so that he can offer himself for employment. If opportunity is not given by management it will amount to violation of section 25-H of I.D. Act Para 14 of statement of claim indicates that after termination of the services of applicant new appointments were made without preference given to applicant. In reply to para 14 of statement of claim non-applicant has denied the appointment. There is no documentary evidence on recored about new appointment. Para 6 of affidavit of applicant filed in evidence indicates that new appointments were made with no preference to applicant but in cross examination applicant has admitted that in his affidavit and statement of claim he has not alleged that after his removal who was appointed & when. The applicant has also admitted that in statement of claim also he has not given detail of newly appointed persons. In para 11 of affiadvit of Sh. Brijraj Singh witness for opposite party violation of section 25-G & H has been specifically denied. In cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there is nothing significant to draw an inference about violation of the section 25-H of I.D. Act. Based on above discussion and appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties I am of the view that the applicant has failed to prove the violation of section 25-H of the I.D. Act regrading appointment of fresh hands subsequent to termination of his service. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the applicant.
Issue No. 4
21. From perusal of the provision contained in section 25-G it appears that whenever in ordinary course of business a workman is required to be retrenched then the last person employed by the employer shall be retrenched first unless there is special reason for retrenchment of a person other than the last employed person. From persual of statement of claim it is evident that in para 13 it has been alleged that there has been violation of section 25-G of Industrial and Disputes Act, 1947 in terminating the services of the applicant & junior to the applicant was retained in service at the time of his removal but no one has been named in statement of claim that who is the person junior to the applicant who was retained. In the affiadavit also filed by applicant as evidence there is no mention of a person junior to him who was retained in the service at the time of his removal. In the cross examination of the applicant on page 2 this question has been placed before him and he has alleged that when he wasw removed at the time all other workmen were also removed. This statement of the applicant during cross examination obviously indicates that no one junior to him was retained and removal of all the workman together is also indicative of the fact of Cessation or completion of a particular work for which they are engaged. Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has been repeatedly argued by learned counsel for opposite party that in fact there has been no appointment, therefore, the question of removal of the applicant from employment does not arise. From the persual of the cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh, Deputy Superintendent (Archaeology) it is clear that no assistance can be taken on this point from his cross examination. Bases on above discussion, it is clear that the applicant has failed to prove that at the time of termination of the service of applicant workman, juniors to him were retained by the management in contravention 24. This issue is to the effect that whether establishement of the non-applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an Industry within the meaing of section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. A preliminary objection has been raised by non-applicant[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2813 Act, 1947. Issue no. 4 is accordingly decided in affirmative against the non-applicant.
Issue no. 1
that establishement of the non-applicant is not covered under definition of 'Industry' as indicated in section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B-40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena v/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun. Against this, it has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that establishment on non- applicant is covered by the definition of 'Industry'. Reliance has been placed by non-applicant on Judgement and order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. etc V/s A. Rajappa and others etc. etc., Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi and Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horiticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India. Tajmahal Agra V/s Sureh Chandra. I have very carefully gone through cases cited by both the parties. Judgement dated 9.6.03 by CGIT, Jabalpur has not been filed by opposite party.
25. In Award dated 18.1.2001 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jaipur in CGIT case No. B. 40/97 in Goverdhan Lal Meena V/s Director (Science), Archaeological Survey of India, Science Branch, Deharadun, cited by learn counsel for the opposite party it has been held in decision of Issue No. 4 that provision of I.D. Act, 1947 apply to the case. Issue No. 4 has dealt with the fact that provisions of I.D. Act apply to the opposite party or not. Cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant indicate that Archaeological Survey of India is covered within the definition of 'Industry' as provided in section2(j) of the I.D. Act. In Award dated 21.10.1988 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Delhi in I.D. No. 78/84 in Workmen through the President, Archaeological Survey Mazdoor Union, New Delhi V/s The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi, discussing the case of Judgement & order dated 21.2.1978 in civil appeal No. 753-754(T) of 1975, Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. v/s A. Rajappa & others etc. etc., it has been held by the CGIT, Delhi that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. In Award dated 17.11.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2005 in Deputy Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeoligical Survey of India, Tajmahal Agra v/s Surech Chandra, it has been held by CGIT, Kanpur that Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry'. From decision of the cases cited on behalf of both the parties & from the fact & circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that establishment of non- applicant Archaeological Survey of India is an 'Industry' within the meaning of section 2(J) of Industrial Disputes 26. This issue is to the effect whether the workman had worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period 25.9.03 to 8.7.06 preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination & whether his service was terminated in violation of section 25-F of the Act? It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant & has also been alleged in the written argument that the applicant has worked for more than 240 days as daily wager during period of 12 months immediately proceding the date of termination on 8.7.06 & termination of the services of applicant is in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, Hence, the order of termination is fit to be set aside with continuity in service along with back wages. Against this, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party & has also been alleged in the written argument that applicant was not appointed by non- applicant, no appointment letter was issued, there was no advertisement for any appointment. It has also been argued that applicant was engaged on daily wage basis for repair of the walls of the fort which is a work of temporary nature.It has also been argued that applicant voluntarily left the place of work on account of none availability of work. It has also been said that on availability of work engagement is made on daily wage basis for the period of work only & provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. It has also been alleged that in view of case of the applicant covered under section 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act, compliance of provision of section 25-F is not required.
27. According to statement of claim applicant was appointed on daily wage on 25.9.03 & was terminated on 8.7.06 without notice or pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation in violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act. What was the post held by the applicant during employment has not been alleged in statement of claim. About the nature of the work the applicant has alleged that whatever work was assigned by the opposite party applicant was performing that work. It has also been alleged that this engagement was neither for a fix work nor for a fix period. The applicant has alleged that he has worked for more than 240 days in every year. In affidavit filed in evidence in support of above statement of claim the applicant has repeated the allegation of statement of claim. No other co-worker has been produced as witness in evidence to support the allegation of statement of claim. In written statement it has been specifically denied by opposite party that applicant that applicant has not worked for 240 days in a year instead it has been alleged that applicant has not worked for 240 days in any of the year. Sh. Brijraj Singh has specifically denied in para 3 of his affidavit that the applicant has worked for 240 days in any of the year. In above fact & circumstances, the burden of proof lies on applicant to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year2814 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] immediately preceding the date of his termination on 8.7.06 as alleged in statement of claim. The applicant has alleged in his cross examination that he has not stated in his affidavit in evidence or in statement of claim that for how many days he has worked in any corresponding year. He has admitted that he has filed document w-1 & in w-1 nature of work has been mentioned for which he was engaged & in w-1 it has also been mentioned that the nature of work includes 'special repair work' & such mention in w-1 is correct. Thus, it shall appear that two documents relating to total number of days of work has been filed by the applicant which in w-1 & w-2. W-2 is the documents which appeared to be prepared by workman whereas w-1 is the documents which appears to be reply submitted by mangement during conciliation proceedings. From document w-2 if taken into consideration for calculating the period of 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination of 8.7.06 then total number of days on which the workman has worked between w-1 it comes out to be 125 days but lacks continuity. Thus, workman has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the year immediately preceding the date of his termination. It shall also appear from both the documents w-1 & w-2 that there is no continuous work in the year.
28. Documents regarding period & corresponding working days filed by management on order of the tribunal passed on application of the applicant proves following detail:—
29. The statement of above table submitted by opposite party regarding statement of work done by workman indicates that from the date of termination on 8.7.2006 applicant has worked only for NIL days in a year immediately preceding the date of termination on 8.7.2006. Thus, it is evident that the workman has not worked continuously for 240 days immediately proceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days immediately preceding the date of termination. From the entire cross examination of Sh. Brijraj Singh there appears nothing to derive in favour of applicant that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year preceding the date of termination. From the above discussion it is clear that applicant has failed to prove that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year immediately preceding the date of his termination.
Period of work Number of working days
19.2.03 to 20.3.03 Nil
28.7.03 to 24.8.03 Nil
13.4.94 to 13.5.04 Nil
09.06.04 to 09.7.04 Nil
11.7.04 to 10.8.04 Nil
12.8.04 to 11.9.04 Nil
13.9.04 to 12.10.04 Nil
14.10.04 to 21.10.04 17
01.11.04 to 1.12.04 Nil
3.12.04 to 2.1.05 Nil
4.1.05 to 3.2.05 Nil
6.2.05 to 8.3.05 Nil
15.2.05 to 17.3.05 Nil
9.3.05 to 17.3.05 09
19.3.05 to 13.4.05 Nil
8.9.05 to 6.10.05 Nil
9.11.05 to 9.12.05 Nil
11.12.05 to 10.1.06 Nil
11.1.06 to 10.2.06 Nil
12.2.06 ro 14.3.06 Nil
9.6.06 to 6.7.06 Nil
Total Number of days between 8.7.2005 to 8.7.2006 Nil 30. As far as the question of violation of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute is concerned it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there has been violation of section 25-F in terminating the services of the applicant, against this learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act & section 25-F does not apply in the case of applicant who was neither employed nor terminated & his engagement has been only for specific period & specific work & he has left the workplace on his own accrod. It has also been argued that as the question of terminating the services of the applicant does not arise, because he was not given any employment & there was no advertisement for employment, hence, section 25-F does not apply to the case of the applicant. Section 25-F reads as under:—
"25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen—No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until.....
(a) The workman has been given on month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrench- ment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days's average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government (or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.)
31. Continuous service as indicated in section 25-F(1) has been defined in section 25-B(1)(ii) which reads as[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2815 under:—
Section 25-B. Definition of continuous service—For the
purposes of this Chapter:—
(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.
(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer—
(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than—
(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and
(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;
32. Section 2 (oo) provides meaning o retrenchment
which reads as under:—
"2(oo)---"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include—
(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the
ground of continued ill-health;
33. About appointment of applicant in the department of opposite party it is pertinent to mention that applicant has admitted in his cross examination that there was neither advertisement for appointment nor applicant had submitted any application for appointment, hence, statement of applicant in his statement of claim & affidavit that he was appointed by the opposite party on a particular date is baseless & wrong. Thus, question of appointment & termination does not arise & contention of the opposite party that applicant was not appointed by the opposite party appears to be correct.
34. In 2006 Supreme Court Cased (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat….Appellant v/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh…Respondent, taking together & analyzing the integrated impact of section 2(oo), section 25-B & section 25-F in paragraph 7 page 43, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "---To attract provisions of section 25-F, the workman claiming protection under it, has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act; the establishment in which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act and he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by section 25-B under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of these conditions is missing the provisions of section 25-F will not be attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he has right to continue in service and that his service has been terminated without complying wit the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. The section postulates three conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for getting a valid retrenchment, namely:
(i) one month's clear notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or that the workman has been paid wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice;
(ii) payment of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof, in excess of six months;
(iii) a notice to the appropriate Government in the
prescribed manner.
35. Looking into the above provisions & the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to attract the provision of section 25-F, it is clear that the applicant as failed to prove that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of his termination, thus, provision of section 25-F is not attracted in the case of applicant. From above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant as not worked continuously for more than 240 days as daily wager immediately preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination on 8.7.2006 & his services were not terminated in violation of section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in negative against the applicant.
36. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that even if section 25-F is not attracted in case of applicant, he is entitled to the benefits of section 25-G & 25-H which are independent of section 25-F. Reliance has2816 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2015/ASADHA 6, 1937 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] been placed on RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Oriental Bank of Commerce…appellant v/s Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & others & RLR 1991(2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma…Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)…Respondent. Against this it has been argued by learned counsel for opposite party that provision of section 25-G & 25-H is not attracted in the case of applicant. I have carefully gone through both the above reported cases.
37. In case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s Presiding Officer respondent 2 cash employed in the bank of petitioner from 23.5.85 to 28.5.85 for a period of 79 days. He was said to be appointed for leave period only & is engagement came to end after expiry of period of leave. The respondent raised industrial dispute relating to section 25-G & 25-H which was referred for adjudication. After the evidence of both the parties tribunal came to the conclusion that there was violation of section 25-G & section 25-H, hence, respondent was directed to be reinstated & it was also directed that he will entitled to pay from the date of joining because respodent was said to be on the job in some other place. On the basis of evidence tribunal came to conclusion that management had failed to indicate that who was on leave in whose place respondent was employed during leave vacancy, hence, this fact was not admitted by tribunal that engagement of respondent was for the period of leave vacancy. It was admitted by the witness of the management that when respondent was removed from service employee Sh. Virendra Singh junior to the respondent was working. It was also admitted by management witness that after removal of respondent Sh. Mulan Rasool & Sh. Narendra Bhatt were appointed on the post of peon but respondent was not given opportunity. Thus, there was violation of section 25-G & 25-H. Petition against the order of tribunal was dismissed by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court & award of the tribunal was confirmed.
38. In RLR 1991 (2), Jaipur Bench, Surya Prakash Sharma …Petitioner v/s Rajasthan Text Book Board, Jaipur & others (122)…..Respondent, it has been held by Hob'ble Court that section 25-G, 25-H & 25-F are independent of each other & section 25-G & 25-H are not dependent on section 25-F. It has also been held that section 25-G & 25-H are applicable irrespective of the fact that the workman has completed 240 days of service or not, It has been further held that Rule 76 to 78 of Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957 are independent of each other & mandatory in nature. Violation of these rules will give a cause of action in favour of workman to claim compensation, damages & re- employment. To derive the benefits of these rules continuous service is not necessary & workmen not having completed 240 days of service are also entitled to the benefits of Rule 76 to 78. In this case petitioner Sh. Surya Prakash Sharma was retrenched from service before completion of 240 days & was not entitled for the benefits u/s 25 of I.D. Act. The only question involved in this case was about applicability of section 25-H of I.D. Act read with Rule 77 & 78. The case of the respondent was that after discharge of petitioner on 1.11.88 they had employed few persons although persons who employed were discharge on 19.8.89. The petition of the petitioner was allowed & he was held entitled to claim wages by way of compensation for the period during which his junior remain in employment.
39. In 1976 LLJ, Supreme Court 478, State Bank of India…Appellant v/s N. Sundaramoney……Respondent, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that read with section 25-B(2) if provision of section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act is attracted in case of the workman he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein. It is pertinent to mention that facts & circumstances of the present case are different comparing to the facts of State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney, hence, law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v/s N. Sundarmoney is not attracted in the present case.
40. From decision of issue No. 2 & 3 it is clear that applicant is not entitled to the benefit for violation of section 25-G & 25-H of Industrial Dispute Act because violation of these two sections have not been proved by the applicant. It is also clear from the evidence on record that no seniority list is in existence as the case of opposite party is that there was no employment in respect of applicant & he was only engaged casually as & when there was existence of work. Applicant has not proved his appointment or termination by filing any documentary evidence in this behalf who was engaged as daily wager. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat …….Appelllant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh ….. Respondent, in para 18 of the judgement in relation to section 25-G & section 25-H as under:—
"………In the absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was not expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on daily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent regarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called seniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with provisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference against the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in existence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle the court to draw inference unfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence is in existence and could have been proved." Finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 38, Surendranagar District Panchayat ……..Appellant V/s Dahyabhai Amarsinh…. Respondnet, is relevant & applies to the case of applicant.
[भाग IIखण्ड 3(ii)] भारत का राजपत्रा : जून 27, 2015/आषाढ़ 6, 1937 2817AWARD 11.5.2015
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication:—
41. Bases on the findings related to issue No. 1 to 4 & from the discussions as above, I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the statement of claim & action of the management of Archaeological Survey of India in terminating the services of the workman Sh. Kamlesh Mali w.e.f. 8.7.2006 is legal & justified.
42. Award as above.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2015
''क्या महाप्रबंधक, एच॰एम॰टी॰ मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड, अजमेर के द्वारा संस्थान में कार्यरत श्रमिकों को नियत वेतन तिथी पर वेतन का भुगतान नहीं किया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है? यदि नहीें तो श्रमिक किस राहत के अधिकारी है?'' का.आ. 1313.—औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एच एम टी मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड, अजमेर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ सं॰ 69/2014) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24/06/2015 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं॰ एल-42011/38/2014-आईआर (डीयू)] पी॰ के॰ वेणुगोपाल, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 25th June, 2015
S.O. 1313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 69/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the H.M.T. Machine Tools Limited, Ajmer and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 24/06/2015.
[No. L-42011/38/2014-IR (DU)] P. K. VENUGOPAL, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
I.D. 69/2014
Reference No. L-42011/38/2014-IR(DU) dated 11.8.2014
The President Hindustan Machine Tools Employees Union, 626/24, Jadam Bhawan, Narishala Road, Shakti Nagar, Ajmer.
V/s
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued to both the parties as per the order of the tribunal dated 29.9.2014 fixing 24.11.2014 for filing statement of claim. On 24.11.2014 learned representative on behalf of opposite party came in appearance & alleged to file authority for & on behalf of opposite party on next date 16.2.2015. Applicant was served for 24.11.2014 but statement of claim was not filed & no one came in appearance for applicant. In interest for justice case was adjourned by the tribunal fixing 16.2.2015 for filing statement of claim. On 16.2.2015 applicant was absent & opposite party was present. Presiding Officer was on leave, 6.5.2015 was fixed for filing statement of claim. On 6.5.2015 also no one appeared for applicant, learned representative for the oposite party was present who alleged that interest is not taken by applicant side in filing statement of claim & only management is coming in appearance since service of notice. Sh. Tara Singh Rawat, Law Officer of the opposite party came in appearance for opposite party. In above fact & circumstances, seeing the uninterestedness from the applicant side in filing statement of claim further opportunity for filing claim was closed & case was reserved for award. 3. It is pertinent to note that on 11.8.2014 reference order was sent by Ministry to the applicant with direction to file statement of claim within 15 days from the date of receipt of reference. Applicant has neither filed statement of claim on the direction of Ministry nor on the notice of the tribunal sent to the applicant. The applicant was under an obligation to file statement of claim after receipt of notice from Ministry even without any notice from the tribunal. Notice sent by the tribunal also has failed to secure positive response from applicant in filing statement of claim. It appears that applicant is not interested & willing to submit the statement of claim for adjusdication. In the circumstances & in the absence of statement of claim & material evidence brought on record by the applicant, tribunal is unable to record the finding on the issues referred to it on merit. Accordingly, "No Claim Award" is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
4. Award as above.
The General Manager H.M.T. Machine Tools Limited, Viyavar Road, Ajmer.
BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.